Landlord and Tenant

A commercial tenancy dispute concerning a restaurant lease that expired on December 12, 2024.

The tenant failed to exercise a contractual renewal option by the required deadline of six months prior to expiry (June 2024).

The tenant sought relief from forfeiture to compel renewal of the lease for another five years.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tenant made no diligent efforts to comply with the renewal option and failed to provide written notice as required by the lease.

The court held that relief from forfeiture is not available where the loss of the lease is consequential to the tenant's own failure to exercise contractual rights.

The applicant, 2248169 Ontario Inc., sought orders for vacant possession and related relief regarding two properties occupied by the respondents.

The respondents claimed rights of occupancy under long-standing leases or assignments.

The court found that there were material factual disputes, including the existence and enforceability of the leases and whether the applicant had notice or was willfully blind to their existence.

The court held that these issues required viva voce evidence and could not be determined on the application record, and therefore ordered that the application be converted to an action.

The tenants appealed an interlocutory order of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that granted the landlord's review request and ordered a new hearing for a rent abatement application.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory order of the LTB.

The court declined to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review, finding it would be premature.

The appeal was dismissed under Rule 2.1.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the residential tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenant's appeal challenged the Board's findings of fact regarding service of the application and whether rent had been paid.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the appeal had no merit as it failed to raise a question of law as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlords of a bankrupt individual sought a declaration that the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act did not apply to an eviction order obtained from the Landlord and Tenant Board, or, alternatively, an order to lift the stay.

The court found that the eviction order was not a 'debt or liability' and therefore not subject to the stay.

In the alternative, the court would have exercised its discretion to lift the stay, finding it just and equitable given the material prejudice to the landlords.

The bankrupt's request for a sealing order was denied, and costs were awarded to the landlords.

The non-parties, who occupied the subject property, brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee against the defendant mortgagor.

The non-parties relied on Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the non-parties lacked standing to rely on Rule 21.01(3) as they were not defendants in the mortgage action.

The court also declined to set aside the order granting the Writ of Possession, noting the request was not properly before the court and constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) sought representation orders under Rule 10.01(1)(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to represent unknown tenants and landlords, respectively, in a motion to set aside an order suspending residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the requests, finding that the case did not fall within the enumerated types of proceedings for a Rule 10 order and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting one, as each tenant facing eviction has unique circumstances.

Furthermore, the court held that ACTO, as an advocacy group without a direct interest or shared cause of action, was not an appropriate representative.

The applicant sought an interim injunction under the Commercial Tenancies Act for immediate access to leased premises, to restrain the respondent from re-entry, and to register the lease on title.

The court granted the injunction for re-entry and restraining the respondent, finding the applicant met the test for interlocutory injunctions, including a serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience.

The respondent's allegations of lease breaches were vague and unsupported.

However, the court declined to permit registration of the lease on title, as the parties had agreed against it in the lease, and the order's intent was to restore the status quo.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant for breach of commercial leases.

The defendant argued that the leases were signed on behalf of her corporation and raised defenses of set-off and promissory estoppel.

The court found that the defendant signed the leases in her personal capacity, as there was no evidence to support corporate adoption or proper corporate naming on the contracts as required by the Canada Business Act.

The court also rejected the defenses of set-off and promissory estoppel, finding that the plaintiff had mitigated damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff for unpaid rent and real estate commissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging housing discrimination based on race, place of origin, and citizenship by his co-tenants and the building janitor.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed a concurrent application with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the LTB proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal, claiming the respondents failed to provide sufficient space for bicycles and refused to allow bicycles in elevators.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the applicant denied having a disability and failed to link the bicycle storage issue to any protected ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicants, a family of tenants, alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, race, and gender, as well as reprisal, after the landlord deactivated their key fob for non-payment, temporarily preventing the disabled minor applicant from accessing the pool for therapy.

The applicants also alleged the superintendent used a racial slur during a subsequent altercation, and that the property manager engaged in reprisal by refusing to discuss the tenancy with the tenant's husband.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the fob deactivation was strictly due to non-payment, preferring the superintendent's evidence that no slurs were used, and concluding the property manager's refusal to speak with the husband was a standard privacy practice requiring the named tenant's authorization.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding accommodation for a motorized scooter.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had an ongoing matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal found significant factual overlap between the two proceedings and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the LTB process to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal after she was denied rent subsidies.

The respondent manager maintained that the subsidies were denied because the applicant consistently failed to submit required income verification forms, including proof of her mother's departure from the household.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were entirely due to the applicant's refusal to comply with basic income verification requirements, not any discriminatory ground.

The application was dismissed.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an eviction order.

The appellants argued they did not receive a fair hearing due to mental illness and that the Tribunal failed to inquire whether the landlord accommodated the disability regarding late rent payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal Member provided adequate guidance to the self-represented appellant and that there was no evidence the landlord was ever advised of the disability during the tenancy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance.

The respondent landlord sought an order deferring the application because the subject matter was currently before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of the Landlord and Tenant Board matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application and requested an interim order preventing the respondent housing corporation from disposing of his belongings following his eviction.

The Tribunal noted that the application did not appear to allege discrimination on any protected ground under the Human Rights Code, raising a jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the interim request and directed the applicant to provide submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the application and on the factors for granting an interim remedy.

The complainant alleged that her apartment superintendent sexually harassed her and subsequently reprised against her when she rebuffed his advances.

The Tribunal found that the superintendent engaged in a course of vexatious comment and conduct of a sexual nature from July 2000 to November 2001, violating sections 2(1) and 7(1) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim, finding that the superintendent's later badgering and bullying of the complainant was triggered by an unrelated incident and was not a reprisal for her refusal of his sexual advances.

The respondents were ordered to pay $5,000 in general damages and the superintendent was ordered to attend human rights training.

The appellant landlord appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Tribunal order that sections 105(1) and 108 of the Tenant Protection Act apply to the respondents' land lease homes.

The landlord argued that applying these sections to permanent structures would lead to an absurd result, as they could not be sold without assigning the land lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sections apply to land lease communities and confirm a tenant's proprietary right to sell their home.

However, the Court clarified that while a landlord cannot refuse consent to an assignment in principle when a home is sold, the landlord retains the right under section 17 to reasonably withhold consent to a specific assignee.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision finding that a dwelling rented to university students was not a lodging house under the municipal by-law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the premises constituted a 'single housekeeping unit' based on evidence of collective decision-making regarding rent, furnishings, utilities, room assignments, and housekeeping.