Anna Solomon

The appellant, a 21-year member of a housing co-operative, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order terminating his occupancy due to arrears and extreme hoarding.

The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal on medical grounds, which the Divisional Court denied due to a pattern of delay and lack of supporting medical evidence.

On the merits, the court found the LTB made no errors of law, as it had properly weighed the evidence regarding the unit's condition, the arrears, and the appellant's medical and financial circumstances.

The LTB had also appropriately exercised its discretion under s. 94.12 of the Residential Tenancies Act to postpone the eviction date.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant landlord appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that dismissed her applications and found she had harassed the respondent tenant and breached the Residential Tenancies Act.

The LTB had ordered the landlord to pay the tenant compensation, cease harassing behaviour, and pay a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the LTB's factual findings regarding the landlord's retaliatory conduct were well supported by the record.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision dismissing her discrimination application against her employer, union, and others.

The HRTO had dismissed the application against the employer due to delay, finding no good faith reason to extend the one-year time limit under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, and dismissed the claims against the other respondents for lack of factual basis or jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness in the HRTO proceedings and held that the HRTO's decisions were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that evicted the appellant wife from her rental unit.

The husband, the sole named tenant, vacated the unit following a domestic violence incident and later submitted a notice of termination.

The Board initially set aside an ex parte eviction order, finding the wife was a tenant, but a subsequent review decision overturned this and ordered eviction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in conducting a review without a serious error in the initial decision.

Furthermore, the court held that under s. 3(2) of O. Reg. 516/06, the wife automatically became a tenant when her husband vacated the unit, and his subsequent notice could not terminate her tenancy.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her after a cooking fire caused extensive damage to the residential complex.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence that the landlord illegally locked her out of the unit after repairs were completed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to permit evidence of the alleged lockout prevented it from considering all circumstances as required by section 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The eviction order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Board.

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they did not receive the Notice of Hearing and that the landlord's application was void for omitting a prior N12 Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination regarding receipt of the Notice of Hearing was an unappealable finding of fact.

The court also held it was bound by prior precedent regarding the validity of the application.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction for persistently failing to pay rent on time.

The tenant argued the LTB was procedurally unfair in scheduling the landlord's applications before her own and erred in law by not excusing her deliberate withholding of rent due to maintenance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's scheduling was a discretionary matter that did not breach procedural fairness.

The Court further held that persistent late payment is a factual finding not subject to appeal, and the LTB properly considered the tenant's circumstances when declining to grant relief from eviction under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting them for non-payment of rent, arguing they were denied procedural fairness when the Board refused their adjournment request.

The tenants claimed the refusal prevented them from presenting repair invoices for set-off and from properly proposing a payment plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's refusal of the adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion.

The Court also held that the Board did not err in rejecting the proposed payment plan or in applying its disclosure rules to exclude the repair invoices.

Finally, the Court confirmed that the Board's monetary jurisdiction limit does not apply to the amount of arrears a tenant must pay to void an eviction order.