Bruce D. Woodrow

The moving party sought to review and set aside an order refusing to extend the time to have a single judge's decision reviewed by a panel of the Court of Appeal.

The underlying dispute involved the termination of the moving party's membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative due to unpaid housing charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, agreeing with previous judges that the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.

A housing co‑operative applied for a declaration terminating a member’s occupancy rights and sought arrears and compensation after the member vacated the unit.

The respondent had accrued rent arrears and her membership was terminated by the co‑operative’s board, but she claimed she had vacated earlier and did not owe further charges.

The court found the co‑operative had not been informed that the unit was vacated until March 2014 and was entitled to arrears and compensation until possession was recovered.

The respondent received credit for a security deposit previously paid.

The court granted the declaration, ordered payment of arrears and compensation, and awarded full indemnity costs pursuant to the co‑operative’s bylaws.

A non-profit housing co‑operative applied under the Co‑operative Corporations Act for an order declaring that the respondent’s membership and occupancy rights were terminated, together with a writ of possession and judgment for arrears of housing charges.

The respondent argued that eviction would be unfair due to disputes about subsidies, alleged accounting errors, and significant personal hardship.

The court held that co‑operative eviction decisions are generally entitled to deference and that the respondent could not dispute arrears without first paying the disputed amounts into court as required by the statute.

The respondent had ceased making housing payments for approximately nineteen months, resulting in substantial arrears.

The court concluded that financial hardship alone does not make eviction unfair and granted the requested relief.

Following settlement of an eviction application by a housing co‑operative concerning rental arrears and repeated late payments, the only remaining issue was costs.

The co‑operative sought full indemnity costs exceeding $21,000 pursuant to its by‑laws and the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent tenant argued the amount was disproportionate and would cause undue hardship given her financial circumstances and that arrears had already been paid.

The court held that while the by‑laws contemplated substantial indemnity costs, the court retained discretion to reduce the award where full indemnity costs would be unfair or unduly onerous.

Considering proportionality, hardship, and the simplicity of the application, the court reduced the costs substantially.

A housing co‑operative sought an order terminating a member’s occupancy and membership due to persistent arrears and repeated failures to pay housing charges in full and on time.

The member did not dispute the arrears or the procedural steps taken by the co‑operative’s board of directors, which included notice, an opportunity to make submissions, and information about the appeal process.

The court found the termination process complied with principles of natural and procedural justice and that the member had failed to appeal the eviction decision internally.

Despite acknowledging the hardship the order would cause, the court held that the co‑operative was entitled to enforce its by‑laws and operate in a financially responsible manner.

The court granted an order terminating membership and occupancy, issued a writ of possession, and ordered payment of arrears and ongoing daily charges until vacant possession.

Following a successful application, the successful party sought $20,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The responding party raised financial hardship and referenced settlement negotiations that had failed primarily over the issue of costs.

The court reiterated that the objective of a costs award is to fix a fair and reasonable amount rather than to indemnify the successful party for its actual legal expenses.

Applying the principles articulated by the Court of Appeal in Boucher, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

A non-profit housing cooperative applied for an order terminating a member’s occupancy and membership rights due to a prolonged history of late, partial, and non-payment of housing charges.

Although the respondent’s rent-geared-to-income subsidy dispute was eventually resolved and arrears were later paid, the cooperative maintained that eviction was justified based on repeated breaches of payment obligations.

The court held that the cooperative board’s eviction decision was reasonable and procedurally fair, noting that courts generally defer to decisions of democratically governed housing cooperatives unless unreasonable.

The respondent failed to pursue the available internal appeal process and provided no exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief under the governing legislation.

The application was granted and a writ of possession ordered.

A non-profit housing cooperative applied to enforce an eviction decision against a member for arrears and repeated failure to pay housing charges in full and on time.

The member had accumulated significant arrears and made sporadic or partial payments despite notice and an opportunity to address the cooperative’s board.

The board terminated the member’s membership and occupancy rights pursuant to the cooperative’s bylaws and the Co‑operative Corporations Act, and the member attempted an internal appeal that failed for lack of quorum at the general meeting.

The court applied a reasonableness standard and emphasized judicial deference to democratically governed housing cooperatives.

Finding the eviction decision reasonable and procedurally fair, the court granted the application, issued a writ of possession, and ordered payment of arrears and costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting an application to terminate their membership and occupancy rights in a co-operative and ordering a writ of possession.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied the reasonableness standard to the co-operative board's eviction decision, which was justified by the appellants' arrears and history of late payments.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness and upheld the application judge's exercise of discretion in granting the writ of possession.

The appellants, a family with seven children living in subsidized co-operative housing, appealed an order terminating their membership and issuing a writ of possession due to late housing charge payments.

The application judge had declined to exercise his discretion to grant relief from eviction under s. 171.21 of the Co-operative Corporations Act, finding no 'change in circumstances' since the co-operative board's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in principle by requiring a change in circumstances rather than considering all circumstances, including the devastating impact of eviction on the children.

The court granted relief from eviction subject to strict conditions for future payments.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative terminated and granting a writ of possession.

The co-operative had withdrawn her rent-geared-to-income subsidy because she failed to disclose her receipt of Ontario Works benefits since 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly concluded the co-operative's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The appellant housing co-operative appealed a judgment that declared the respondent's membership and occupancy rights terminated but stayed the enforcement of the eviction and arrears on certain conditions.

The respondent, who is disabled, had fallen into arrears after his income decreased and the co-operative froze subsidies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing judge erred in principle by effectively granting an indefinite and retroactive subsidy to the respondent, which was an unwarranted interference with the co-operative's democratic decision-making process and imposed an unfair financial burden on the other members.

The moving party, a co-operative housing provider, sought to quash the respondent's appeal or lift a stay of enforcement of a writ of possession.

The respondent had been ordered evicted due to threats and disturbances, and her previous appeals and applications for judicial review had been dismissed.

She sought a stay pending a human rights complaint.

The court found the appeal to be without merit, constituting a collateral attack and an abuse of process, and noted that leave to appeal the interlocutory order had not been sought.

The appeal was quashed and the writ of possession was ordered to be enforced.

The appellants, members of a housing co-operative, appealed a judgment terminating their occupancy rights and ordering payment of post-bankruptcy arrears.

They argued the judgment violated the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act by identifying pre-bankruptcy arrears, and that they were denied procedural fairness when the application judge refused an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judgment did not violate the BIA as it explicitly stayed collection of pre-bankruptcy arrears, and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the adjournment given the mounting arrears and prejudice to the co-operative.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The court declined to award costs to the successful respondent co-operative, citing the appellant's difficult financial circumstances and the respondent's failure to cooperate with the City to enable the appellant to obtain a housing subsidy.

The court also rejected the respondent's request for costs against the appellant's solicitor personally.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a judgment evicting her from her co-operative housing unit and ordering her to pay rent arrears.

She argued the trial judge failed to exercise his discretion under s. 171 of the Co-operative Corporations Act to refuse the eviction, alleging she relinquished her rent subsidy due to misrepresentations by the co-operative's board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's fact-finding and no error in principle in his exercise of discretion to grant the eviction.

The respondent co-operative brought a motion to quash the applicant member's application for judicial review of a decision to terminate her membership and occupancy rights.

The court held that the Co-operative Corporations Act provides an adequate and appropriate alternative forum for challenging eviction decisions, offering extensive protections including a hearing before the Superior Court of Justice.

Finding no basis that judicial review would provide a better avenue of relief, the court granted the motion to quash the application.

The appellant, a non-profit housing co-operative, appealed a decision dismissing its application to terminate the respondent's membership and occupancy rights.

The respondent was overhoused in a two-bedroom unit and had refused three offers to relocate to a one-bedroom unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the co-operative had complied with its by-laws and the Co-operative Corporations Act in terminating the membership of the respondent's former roommate and in requiring the respondent to downsize.

The court issued a declaration terminating the respondent's rights and granted a writ of possession.

The appellant housing co-operative appealed from a Divisional Court decision that had decided the merits of a settled dispute concerning termination of a member's membership and occupancy rights.

The Court of Appeal held the matter was moot because the parties had fully settled and neither retained any live legal interest in the outcome.

Applying the mootness framework, the court declined to hear the appeal on the merits, finding the issues were not uniquely evasive of review and did not raise broad questions of public importance.

The Divisional Court should not have entertained the moot appeal.

Its order was set aside and the appeal was dismissed as moot, without costs.