Caryma Sa’d

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy to allow the landlords to demolish and rebuild the house.

The tenant had failed to attend the eviction hearing and subsequently sought a review, which the Board dismissed after finding he had been properly served with notice and did not genuinely intend to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding service were supported by the record and that there was no error of law or breach of procedural fairness.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy on the basis that he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The matter had previously been adjourned sine die on consent pending criminal charges.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant did not receive notice of the reconvened hearing, noting his prompt action upon learning of the decision and his prior attendance.

The appeal was allowed, the termination order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a rehearing.

At an initial case conference for a proposed class action, counsel agreed on a timetable leading up to the certification motion.

The court endorsed the agreed schedule, setting the certification motion for September 9, 2021.

The applicant, a residential tenant living above an unlicensed cannabis retail store, brought an application under section 18(4) of the Cannabis Control Act to lift an interim closure order that barred entry to the entire premises.

The premises had been repeatedly closed by law enforcement due to illegal cannabis sales, but the operators continually breached the closures.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to satisfy the burden of proving that, if access were granted, the premises would not continue to be used for illegal cannabis sales with the landlord's permission.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction.

The appellant had been employed as a live-in superintendent, and his employment was terminated upon the sale of the building.

The Board found that under section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the tenancy terminated with the employment, as there was no agreement otherwise.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised by the appellant regarding the existence of a new tenancy agreement and the interpretation of the employment contract were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The plaintiff mortgagee commenced an action against the mortgagor for a defaulted mortgage.

Upon discovering the mortgagor's spouse resided in the property, the plaintiff added the spouse to the claim to preserve any potential possessory rights under the Family Law Act.

The spouse brought a motion to dismiss the action against him, confirming he had permanently renounced all possessory rights in a prior separation agreement.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the spouse, with no order as to costs.