Landlord and Tenant

The accused was charged with assault arising from an incident in which he pushed the property owner (his landlord) out of his rental unit.

The landlord attended the property with plumbers to investigate a water leak.

The accused claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found that the accused had peaceable possession of the property and acted with a defensive purpose, it concluded that the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The threat posed by the landlord was negligible, and the accused should have attempted verbal communication before resorting to physical force.

The court found the accused guilty of assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed motions by tenants Michael Schram and Leslie Mitchell for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal regarding the termination of their tenancy and the dismissal of their action.

The court found that the proposed appeals lacked merit and that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The court also dismissed the request for a stay of eviction and awarded costs to the responding parties.

This decision resolves competing applications between a commercial landlord and tenant regarding the use of a basement in a leased property.

The landlord, Danica Schindler, sought to terminate the lease with DFIV Corp. for alleged breaches, including unauthorized use of the basement and installation of equipment.

The tenant countered that use of the basement was an implied term and that the landlord breached the lease by restricting access and failing to provide adequate HVAC.

The court found the lease did not include the basement, the tenant breached the lease by using the basement and installing equipment without consent, and the landlord was entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession.

The plaintiff, John Shane, sought damages from Ontario Aboriginal Housing Support Services Corporation (OAHS) for property damage caused by a fire in a rental unit leased to OAHS clients.

Shane claimed OAHS had orally agreed to cover all property damage caused by its clients, or, in the alternative, that OAHS was negligent in supporting the tenants.

The court found no oral contract existed, as there was no meeting of the minds or clear promise by OAHS to cover all damages.

The court also found no evidence of negligence by OAHS.

The claim was dismissed.

The court considered a request by Ontario to dismiss the application against it under rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application alleged that the applicant’s landlords breached his privacy, the lease agreement, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

As against Ontario, the claim was that Ontario failed to act on the applicant’s complaints about the rental premises and the conduct of the landlords.

The court found that the pleading did not identify a viable claim or duty owed by Ontario and made procedural orders, including a stay of the action and directions for further submissions.

The decision concerns a motion for summary judgment by the landlord, Parvaneh Ansari Ardabili, against tenants Norman J. Zak and Adina Zak for unpaid rent, utilities, and damages to a residential property.

The court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction, that the tenants owed $40,250 in unpaid rent at the original lease rate, and awarded additional amounts for utilities and damages, plus costs.

The court clarified the application of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding rent increases and the effect of not challenging increases within the statutory period.

The appellant/tenant, Jeffrey Potofsky, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal and for a stay of eviction orders issued by Charney J. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate an intention to appeal within the prescribed deadline or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The court also found significant prejudice to the respondent/landlord due to protracted non-payment of substantial rental arrears.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal was deemed meritless, and the criteria for granting a stay (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) were not met.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, induced breach of contract, and abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a landlord, sought damages after the defendant, a tenant, did not vacate a residential unit by the closing date of a sale, leading to the plaintiff's inability to deliver vacant possession.

The court, relying on the Residential Tenancies Act as a complete code, found that the plaintiff's claims as pleaded could not succeed because the defendant had statutory rights to remain until an eviction order was made, and the plaintiff had not pleaded that the defendant failed to abide by such an order.

The motion to strike the Statement of Claim was granted, but the plaintiff was given leave to amend.

This motion concerned a dispute over a property where the applicant, the owner, sought an order for the respondent, a commercial tenant who also resided there, to vacate the premises and leave to commence a new application for damages.

The applicant argued the respondent was a trespasser due to a terminated lease and property damage.

The respondent argued the applicant's actions caused the damage and that the proper procedure for eviction under the Commercial Tenancies Act was not followed.

The court applied the three-part test for an injunction from RJR-MacDonald Inc., finding a serious issue but no irreparable harm if the respondent was not removed.

The court denied the request for the respondent to vacate and the leave to commence a new application, noting that the issues were already covered in existing consolidated applications.

However, the court ordered a plan for the applicant to access the property for necessary repairs, with the respondent and her son absent during work hours.

Costs were not awarded due to mixed success and poor party conduct.

A condominium corporation sought an urgent order for tenants to remove their dangerous dogs after one attacked a resident and her dog.

Despite prior court orders to remove the dogs and muzzle them, the tenants brought them back.

The court found the tenants in breach of multiple orders and determined they were unsuited for communal living, ordering the termination of their tenancy and their eviction from the unit.

The Landlord (1617887 Ontario Ltd.) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a crossclaim by the Estate of Greg Campbell.

The crossclaim alleged the Landlord was liable for the plaintiff's injuries due to failing to ensure the tenant tavern (Jessie's Café Bar & Grill) had adequate insurance and for failing to manage/supervise the premises, after the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle driven by Greg Campbell following intoxication at the tavern.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the Landlord did not owe a duty of care to manage or supervise the tavern, nor to ensure the tavern had public liability insurance, as there was no proximity or causal connection.

The motion for summary judgment was allowed, and the crossclaim against the Landlord was dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim against the Landlord was also dismissed as they had agreed to release the Landlord.

The applicants, a senior couple, sought to bring an urgent application for leave to evict residential tenants, despite a provincial moratorium on evictions, and requested the court to grant an eviction order.

The court declined to schedule the proposed application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an initial eviction order for residential tenants.

Such jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court clarified that its role under Rule 60.17 is limited to providing directions for enforcing an *existing* eviction order, not creating one.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture and return of leased premises.

The respondent landlord requested an adjournment, which was granted by the court.

The adjournment was primarily due to the lack of notice to a third-party tenant in possession and the need for potential further evidence regarding a contentious lease amending agreement.

The court set specific terms for the adjournment, including notification of the third party and a timetable for outstanding materials.

The plaintiff, Aldgate Construction (1988) Limited, brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants, Noreast Foods Ltd. and its guarantor Zi Zhong Wu, for unpaid rent and breach of repair covenants under a commercial lease.

Aldgate sought damages of $105,356.88 and dismissal of Noreast's $1,151,421.99 counterclaim for alleged unlawful termination.

The court granted summary judgment in part for Aldgate in the main action, awarding $79,196.52, finding no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the breaches of lease and damages.

However, the court dismissed Aldgate's motion to summarily dismiss the counterclaim, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the lawfulness of Aldgate's re-entry and any consequential damages suffered by Noreast.

The court also specified undisputed material facts for the counterclaim to streamline the subsequent trial.

The Landlord brought a motion to quash the Tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board termination order.

The Board had previously found the agreed-upon rent of $1,750, which included utilities, was lawful under s. 123(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and subsequently issued a termination order for non-payment of the $300 portion of rent.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law as required by s. 210 of the Act.

Alternatively, even if a question of law was extractable, it was manifestly devoid of merit, consistent with prior Divisional Court decisions affirming that utilities can be included in rent under s. 123.

The appellant, a pizza restaurant operator, entered into a 10-year commercial lease but abandoned it within four months, claiming the premises were unsuitable.

The respondent landlord took possession, sued for damages, and obtained summary judgment for unpaid rent and prospective damages totaling $85,697.96, calculated on the basis of 22 months to re-let.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in awarding prospective damages without adequate evidence.

Before the appeal hearing, the premises were re-let approximately 10 months after the appellant's repudiation.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence of the re-letting and allowed the appeal, setting aside the damages award and remitting the matter for trial to properly quantify damages in light of the actual re-letting period.

The appellants, Smiles First Corporation and Union Health and Dental Centre Inc., appealed the dismissal of their application under section 21 of the Commercial Tenancies Act and section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The core dispute involved a head lease assignment dated October 31, 2016, from the intermediate tenant to Smiles First, and the effect of the intermediate tenant's subsequent abandonment of the head lease on Smiles First's sublease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the head lease assignment was ineffective due to lack of landlord consent, Smiles First remained entitled to possession of the premises as a subtenant under the sublease, which survived the head lease surrender.

A commercial tenant sought a declaration under the Commercial Tenancies Act that a landlord had wrongfully distrained its assets and equipment after terminating the tenancy by changing the locks, or alternatively that the distraint was excessive.

The application judge found that changing the locks did not terminate the lease because the tenant retained access to the premises during business hours and by arrangement after hours.

The application judge ordered a trial to determine whether the distraint was excessive, as the parties had not provided sufficient particularized evidence of the value of the distrained equipment or the exact amount of rent arrears.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that while a summary determination was possible on the lease termination issue, the parties had not presented sufficient evidence to determine the amount of rent outstanding, the value of the distrained goods, or any damages.