Amanda Montgomery

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his occupancy in a non-profit housing co-operative for failing to pay regular monthly housing charges.

The appellant argued the LTB failed to address the co-op manager's non-compliance with bylaws and that the hearing was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB correctly restricted its inquiry to its limited jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any procedural unfairness during the hearing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of inmates in federal penitentiaries who were subjected to suspicionless strip searches.

The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations authorizing these searches in certain situations were ultra vires the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, breached sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and constituted torts including trespass to the person and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections and granted the motion for certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, the class definition was appropriate, the proposed common issues were valid, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The plaintiff, Victoria Sanders, sought costs of $75,740.16 after successfully obtaining an interlocutory injunction against Canada's Choice Investments Inc. (CCI) to restrain mortgage enforcement.

CCI argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, which is typical for interlocutory injunctions as there has been no final determination of rights.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, agreed with CCI, ordering that the costs of the motion be "in the cause" to be determined by the trial judge, citing the unique nature of interlocutory injunctions and the potential for material to be used later in the litigation.

The 78-year-old plaintiff, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant private lenders from enforcing a $500,000 high-interest mortgage registered against her home.

The plaintiff alleged the mortgage was unconscionable and procured through fraudulent misrepresentations by door-to-door salespeople.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff only needed to show a serious question to be tried, but had in fact established a strong prima facie case of both unconscionability and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court concluded the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if forced from her home, and the balance of convenience favoured protecting her interests pending trial.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a housing co-operative.

He argued procedural unfairness regarding the scheduling of an expedited remote hearing, the use of security video evidence, and findings on conduct not in the eviction notices, as well as a failure to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the remote hearing process or the admission of evidence, and concluding that the adjudicator had appropriately considered and accommodated his disability by delaying the eviction.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority granting a permit to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to build a retaining wall on Sauble Beach.

The applicant also challenged the Town's decision to proceed without obtaining a permit under the Endangered Species Act or conducting an environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court found the Authority's decision to issue the permit was unreasonable because it failed to properly apply the test under O. Reg. 151/06 and failed to consider the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement regarding dynamic beach hazards.

The permit was quashed and remitted to the Authority.

The challenges to the Town's decisions regarding the Endangered Species Act and Environmental Assessment Act were dismissed as premature and lacking the proper respondents.

The applicant sought to quash a permit issued by the conservation authority to the respondent town for work on a beach, which was scheduled before the return of the Piping Plover.

The Divisional Court issued a bottom-line endorsement granting the application in part, quashing the permit, and remitting the matter back to the conservation authority.

The balance of the application was dismissed, with full reasons to follow.