Antonin I. Pribetic

The landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring four co-tenants to pay rent arrears.

Three of the co-tenants had permanently vacated the apartment before the application was brought.

The Tribunal held it could only make an order against the tenant still in possession.

The Divisional Court reversed, holding that possession by one co-tenant constituted possession by all.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, restoring the Tribunal's decision.

The Court held that a 'tenant in possession' under s. 86 of the Tenant Protection Act requires some form of control over the unit, and a tenant who has completely and permanently vacated is not in possession, meaning the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an order against them.

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) brought a motion to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning the liability of former co-tenants for rent arrears under the Tenant Protection Act.

The respondent landlord opposed the motion, arguing that the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding intervention do not apply to such appeals and that the intervention would unnecessarily complicate the private litigation.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding that Rule 13.03(2) explicitly permits intervention and that ACTO's expertise would assist the court in understanding the broader legal issues regarding co-tenant relationships.

The motion to intervene was granted subject to conditions.

The plaintiffs, police officers, brought an action against two Assistant Crown Attorneys and the Crown for negligence, malicious prosecution, and other claims arising from assault charges laid against them.

The defendants moved to strike the negligence claims and the vicarious liability claims against the Crown.

The motions judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Crown Attorneys are absolutely immune from suits for negligence, and the Crown is immune from liability for the actions of Crown Attorneys under s. 5(6) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The negligence claims and the action against the Crown (except for Charter claims) were struck out.