Landlord and Tenant

The plaintiff, Avi Berger, moved to stay a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) application pending the outcome of his Superior Court action, in which he claims a beneficial ownership interest in the property at issue.

The defendant Sammie Millis, the current owner, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the LTB has sole jurisdiction over tenancy and eviction matters, and that the Superior Court action regarding beneficial ownership can proceed independently.

The court found no special circumstances to warrant a stay and held that granting one would be unjust to the landlord.

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 defendant, Mark Varnam, brought a motion to set aside a noting in default, default judgment, and garnishment obtained by the plaintiff, Touranto (Canada) Holdings Limited, for rental arrears and damages.

Varnam argued he had a plausible excuse for default due to disabilities, being self-represented, lack of access to files, and pandemic-related business impacts, and that he had an arguable defence including payments made and Touranto's lack of cooperation with government assistance applications.

The court granted the motion, finding that Varnam provided a plausible explanation for his default and demonstrated an arguable defence, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice for self-represented litigants and that default proceedings should not be used for tactical advantage.

The London & Middlesex Housing Corporation (LMHC) brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a claim against it by a tenant, Keith Horn.

Horn alleged LMHC was liable for an assault and battery committed by another tenant, Brian Latondress, who was also employed by LMHC as a Resident Contact.

Horn claimed direct negligence in hiring Latondress and/or vicarious liability.

LMHC argued that Latondress's actions were either self-defence or an independent intentional act outside the scope of his employment.

The court dismissed LMHC's motion, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the nexus between Latondress's conduct and his employment, particularly concerning vicarious liability under the Salmond test and the "enterprise risk" principle.

This case management endorsement addresses an appeal by a self-represented tenant against an eviction order, where the tenant had not paid rent for two years, claiming the unit was uninhabitable.

The court balanced the interests of the parties, allowing the landlord to re-enter and take possession of the unit, while providing the tenant a deadline to remove personal property.

The landlord was prohibited from re-leasing the premises pending further court order, and a future case management teleconference was scheduled to set a schedule for the appeal and consider interim payments or re-leasing restrictions.

The court clarified that the tenant's intention to seek a review or stay did not automatically stay the order.

The plaintiffs, a hair salon tenant and its principals, brought a motion for injunctive relief and access to commercial leased premises after the landlord locked them out due to alleged rent arrears and property damage concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The landlord had purported to exercise a right of distress for an inflated amount including by-law infraction costs.

The court found the landlord's actions constituted a forfeiture of the lease and an illegal distraint.

The court granted the plaintiffs' requested access to retrieve chattels and ordered the landlord to pay substantial indemnity costs due to its "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct" in holding the chattels hostage during a vulnerable time.

The applicant sought a declaration that their tenancy was governed by the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and to continue an interim injunction against lockout.

The respondent sought a declaration that the Commercial Tenancies Act (CTA) applied and an order for possession.

The court applied the "predominant purpose" test under RTA s. 5(j) and s. 202, considering all circumstances including the actual use of the premises, the parties' intentions, and the landlord's knowledge.

The court found the tenancy's predominant purpose was residential, thus the RTA applied, and the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the s. 5(j) exemption.

A landlord sought leave to bring an urgent motion for directions to enforce an eviction order against tenants, despite a province-wide moratorium on evictions due to a public health emergency.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously ordered eviction based on a finding that a tenant committed a serious illegal act within the residential complex.

The court, acting as delegate of the Regional Senior Justice, found the matter urgent and granted leave for the landlord to bring the motion for directions, emphasizing the time-sensitive nature and potential interests of vulnerable third parties.

The moving party, Paul Taylor, sought to vary a motion judge's order that granted a stay of an eviction order on terms, specifically challenging the requirement to pay rent arrears.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's decision, which had properly applied the test for a stay and respected principles for self-represented litigants.

The court concluded that the motion judge's decision represented an appropriate balancing of all relevant factors and competing interests.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order dismissing his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Board had ordered the moving party to pay the respondent $4,885.19 for damages arising from a bed bug infestation.

The issue before the Board was whether the rental accommodation fell within the exemption under section 5(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 for shared accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as it did not raise a question of law but rather challenged factual findings.

The motion judge dismissed the extension request, finding little merit to the proposed appeal given the limited right of appeal available under the RTA.

A commercial cold storage lease dispute concerning the interpretation of an energy cost pass-through clause and the tenant's right to renew.

The tenant failed to pay claimed increased energy costs, which the landlord characterized as a default preventing lease renewal.

The application judge found the tenant in breach and declined to grant relief from forfeiture due to lack of due diligence.

On appeal, the tenant challenged only the relief from forfeiture decision, arguing the wrong legal test was applied.

The appellate court upheld the decision, confirming that relief from forfeiture in lease renewal contexts requires a narrower test than the standard three-pronged approach, and that the tenant must demonstrate diligent efforts to comply with lease terms.

The appellant sought leave for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's grounds for appeal concerned questions of fact, not law, which are not appealable under section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court also varied paragraph 7 of the original Board order to extend the date for vacant possession to April 30, 2019, providing the appellant with additional time to vacate the premises.

The plaintiff landlord sought double damages under sections 48 and 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act against the tenant corporation and its principals for allegedly fraudulently or clandestinely removing goods to prevent distress for rent arrears.

The court found that the bulk of the goods were removed before rent arrears accrued and that the removal was not clandestine or fraudulent.

The claims against the individual defendants and the claim for double damages against the corporate tenant were dismissed.

The corporate tenant was found liable for damages for breach of lease due to unpaid rent.

A self-represented litigant sought to extend the time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Divisional Court that had upheld a master's decision dismissing his action against a commercial landlord.

The applicant had missed the 15-day deadline by three days but delayed nine months before bringing the motion to extend time.

Two motion judges refused the extension.

The Court of Appeal panel reversed both orders and granted the extension, finding that the justice of the case favoured extension based on the applicant's maintained intention to appeal, absence of prejudice to the respondent, and arguable errors in the courts below regarding jurisdiction and the application of the striking rule.

Vista owned a shopping mall and leased space to Zellers, which operated a retail store.

Zellers notified Vista in February 2004 of its intention to cease operations in May 2004, although the lease did not terminate until April 2005.

Vista sued, claiming Zellers was obliged under "continuous use" clauses in the lease to operate until the lease ended.

The trial judge found that Zellers was entitled to close when it did, interpreting the continuous use obligation as qualified by the hours of operation clause.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the continuous use obligation in sections 8.01 and 8.05 was not overridden by the hours of operation clause in section 8.01.1, and that Zellers breached its obligation by closing prematurely.

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment finding the indemnifier liable under an indemnity agreement for unpaid rent and related losses.

The indemnifier challenged the finding of liability based on alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations by the landlord regarding park improvements.

The court upheld the finding of liability, rejecting the misrepresentation defence.

On the quantum issue, the court dismissed the indemnifier's appeal regarding restoration costs and legal fees, but allowed the landlord's cross-appeal to extend liability for future rent through the end of the lease term, subject to mitigation credits.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Divisional Court order dismissing their appeals from Landlord and Tenant Board decisions that terminated their tenancies.

The moving parties were tenants in a rental property subject to demolition and redevelopment.

The responding party provided them with temporary relocation units at reduced rent pending completion of replacement units, with the understanding they would vacate once the replacement building was ready.

The moving parties refused to vacate and sought relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious question to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The court also applied the clean hands doctrine, noting the moving parties had acted in bad faith by refusing to honor their relocation agreement.

The applicant mortgagee sought an order to set aside a tenancy agreement entered into by the mortgagor after defaulting on a mortgage.

The mortgagee argued the agreement was made to discourage possession or adversely affect property value.

The respondent tenants contended that the mortgagee, by accepting a rent payment, became a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act, thus precluding the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The court found that the mortgagee's actions were insufficient to establish "mortgagee in possession" status and that it retained jurisdiction under the Mortgages Act to set aside the tenancy agreement.

A writ of possession was issued, and the tenants were ordered to vacate, with the mortgagor responsible for reimbursement.