Landlord and Tenant

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision regarding rent arrears and maintenance issues, specifically the lack of a dishwasher and in-unit laundry facilities.

The LTB had found the landlord complied with the lease by providing basement laundry access and ended a 20% rent abatement.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding lease interpretation and factual findings about the basement's condition.

However, the court remitted the issue of calculating the 'lawful rent' back to the LTB to consider the application of specific statutory discount rules under the Residential Tenancies Act that were not addressed in the original decision.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy in supportive housing and subsequent orders dismissing her requests for review.

The tenant argued the LTB erred by not considering her inability to attend the hearings due to incarceration and health issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determinations regarding the tenant's ability to participate were findings of fact, not errors of law, and therefore outside the court's jurisdiction under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for alleged landlord harassment and interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal related entirely to findings of fact, not questions of law, contrary to section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed the dismissal of its application to restrain the respondent landlord from terminating its commercial lease.

The landlord relied on a 30-day termination clause from a 1998 amending agreement.

The tenant argued that subsequent amending agreements, which included a six-month termination clause conditional on redevelopment, indicated the 30-day clause was confined to the 1998 extension term.

The Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by failing to address this key argument regarding contractual interpretation.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The tenants sought a stay of a Divisional Court order, which had dismissed their appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and allowed the landlord's cross-appeal regarding trust monies.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the landlord due to significant and accumulating rent arrears and the tenants' history of relitigating issues and failing to comply with previous orders.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The appellant landlord appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that granted an extension of time to comply with a fire inspection order regarding excessive combustible materials in a tenant's unit.

The landlord sought a further extension of up to seven months, arguing it could not comply without the uncooperative tenant's consent and was pursuing eviction at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the extension, prioritizing the fire and life safety of the building's residents and noting the uncertainty of the LTB proceedings.

This endorsement addresses the costs following a four-day summary trial where judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for breach of lease damages and personal liability against one defendant.

The court applied Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering factors such as the result, counsel experience, complexity, and the importance of issues.

The plaintiff was found substantially successful and awarded costs, calculated at a full indemnity rate for lease damages and a partial indemnity rate for personal liability issues, with a deduction for certain dismissed claims.

The court declined to apportion costs separately between the corporate and individual defendants, finding their interests and defence intertwined, and ordered costs payable jointly and severally.

The Landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) to enforce an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) against the bankrupt tenants.

The tenants had accumulated significant rent arrears and had not complied with the LTB order to void the termination of their tenancy, nor had they paid rent post-bankruptcy.

The court found that the bankruptcies were deliberately filed to frustrate the LTB order and that the landlord was materially prejudiced by the continued stay.

The motion was granted, allowing the landlord to obtain possession of the property, and it was clarified that section 84.2 of the BIA did not apply as the termination was not solely due to bankruptcy or pre-bankruptcy non-payment.

The appellant, a tenant in a condominium unit, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the condominium corporation.

The motion judge found that the appellant lacked standing to sue the corporation regarding alleged non-compliance with the Condominium Act and by-laws, as only the unit owner could authorize such claims.

The motion judge also found that the appellant's other claims consisted of bald allegations lacking particularity or failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to file fresh evidence and upheld the summary judgment, finding no basis for interference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

A tenant operating a dry cleaning business appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for wrongful termination of his commercial lease.

The landlord had terminated the tenancy based on the tenant's failure to complete a government-approved training course in the management of contaminants and wastes, as required by regulation and the lease.

The Court of Appeal found that the landlord failed to comply with the strict notice requirements under the Commercial Tenancies Act by not identifying the specific breach in the termination notice.

The court also found that the tenant had presented uncontradicted evidence that the required course was unavailable and that the Ministry of the Environment had inspected the premises, suggesting the tenant may have satisfied the regulatory requirements through alternative means.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted for assessment of damages.

The plaintiffs, having previously succeeded in a damages claim for breach of a commercial lease, sought pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the contractual lease rate of 18% per annum and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for the lower statutory interest rate, citing historical low market rates and potential windfall for the plaintiffs.

The court, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co.*, upheld the contractual interest rate, finding no special circumstances to override the parties' agreement.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiffs as requested, fixed at $106,581, including disbursements and tax, based on their formal offer to settle.

The applicant sought a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching an interim order regarding access to premises and handling of assets during a tenancy dispute.

The court found the respondent in contempt for intentionally refusing access to one of the applicant's employees, Mr. Fennell, which was contrary to the order for supervised access.

Other allegations, including unreasonable behaviour, preventing removal of an 8-foot brake, and relocating assets within the premises, were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court imposed a fine of $5,000 and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $8,000 to the applicant.

Punitive damages were deemed inappropriate at this interim stage.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action for delay and to restore the matter to the trial list.

The underlying claim concerned damages for breach of a commercial lease and alleged damage to fixtures following the defendant’s departure from leased premises.

The court considered the established factors governing whether a dismissal for delay should be set aside, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

The delay was largely attributable to serious injuries suffered by the plaintiff’s counsel and inadvertent failure to respond to a status notice.

Finding the delay explained and no significant prejudice to the defendant, the court set aside the dismissal and restored the action to the trial list.

A residential landlord commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking compensation for damage to an oven allegedly caused by tenants.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate a landlord’s claim for property damage against a tenant where the tenant remained in possession when the claim was issued.

Applying authorities interpreting the Residential Tenancies Act, the court held that such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The claim against the tenant was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

However, the court held that it retained jurisdiction over a guarantor who had signed the tenancy agreement and ordered the guarantor to pay the landlord one-third of the reduced replacement cost after accounting for betterment.

The defendants requisitioned the registrar to have the plaintiff’s action reviewed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as potentially frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The claim arose after the plaintiff was evicted from cooperative housing pursuant to orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board and subsequent court proceedings.

The plaintiff commenced a new action against the tribunal member, court employee, the cooperative, its counsel, and a manager involved in service.

The court held that the action appeared to attempt to relitigate matters already decided and noted the immunity of tribunal adjudicators and the absence of duties owed by opposing counsel to adverse parties.

The court directed the registrar to give notice that dismissal under Rule 2.1 was being considered and stayed the action pending written submissions.

A housing co‑operative applied for an order confirming termination of the respondents’ occupancy and for a writ of possession after persistent arrears and breaches of multiple performance agreements.

The respondents argued that a later performance agreement cancelled the eviction decision and raised hardship concerns relating to their family circumstances.

The court applied a reasonableness standard to the co‑operative board’s decision and held that the board reasonably determined the performance agreement required immediate payment of arrears and therefore never came into force when payment was delayed.

Given the respondents’ ongoing arrears and breaches, the board’s decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

No basis for judicial intervention on hardship grounds was established.

The applicant alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in housing on the basis of race, colour, and disability after being evicted from a shared townhouse.

The respondent landlord claimed the shared accommodation exemption under section 21(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the respondent resided in the home and shared facilities with the tenants, thus exempting him from the Code's anti-discrimination provisions.

The Tribunal further held that complaints about uncleanliness did not amount to Code-based harassment, and the eviction was not a reprisal but rather a response to the applicant's threats of violence against co-tenants.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and marital status by her landlord, including harassment and eviction.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The respondent argued the matter was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found the LTB had dismissed the applicant's claims for lack of jurisdiction over the requested remedy and did not address the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal also found the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant alleged the superintendent and property manager made explicitly discriminatory comments.

The request to dismiss the application was denied and a hearing on the merits was ordered.

Two appeals were brought from the decision of a Claims Officer in insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act concerning disputed landlord claims arising from leases originally entered in 1979.

One appellant challenged the Claims Officer’s jurisdiction to permit an amendment to a proof of claim and argued that the landlord failed to provide clear and timely notice of an intention to seek prospective damages following lease repudiation.

The other appellant argued that its claim was wrongly disallowed on the basis that notice of its intention to claim damages was untimely and prejudicial to the assignor tenant.

The court held that the Claims Officer had jurisdiction under the claims order to permit amendments and determine procedural matters and that the notice given by one landlord was sufficient.

The court also held that the second landlord’s delayed notice, after entering into a new lease in mitigation, prejudiced the assignor and justified disallowance of its claim.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56 in an action arising from a failed real estate transaction and subsequent landlord‑tenant disputes.

The self‑represented plaintiff alleged fraud and misrepresentation relating to a Seller Property Information Statement and sought extensive damages against the vendors and real estate agents.

The court found that the defendants met the threshold under Rule 56 due to outstanding unpaid costs awards and concerns that the action was frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff failed to prove impecuniosity or provide evidence supporting financial hardship.

Security for costs was therefore ordered, with different amounts depending on whether the plaintiff proceeded under the regular or simplified rules.