Charles Neuwald

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 18, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not provide a cost outline, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to regain possession of leased premises after being locked out by the respondent landlord for unpaid rent.

The landlord argued the tenant was improperly receiving federal pandemic rent subsidies while failing to pay full rent, invoking the doctrine of ex turpi causa.

The court granted the injunction, finding the landlord violated the clear statutory moratorium on commercial evictions under the Commercial Tenancies Act, and ordered the landlord to restore possession to the tenant upon payment of a specified sum towards arrears.

The appellants appealed the refusal of the Chief Building Official to issue building permits for lots created by a testamentary devise.

The municipality refused the permits because the lots did not front onto an improved street as required by the zoning by-law.

The appellants proposed creating internal roadways owned by the lot owners to connect to public streets.

The court held that this proposal did not satisfy the by-law's requirement that the lots themselves front upon an improved street, and dismissed the appeals.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to serve and file a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment and other relief.

The Divisional Court determined that the underlying order was a final order, not interlocutory, and that the damages claimed exceeded the court's monetary jurisdiction.

Consequently, the proper route of appeal was to the Court of Appeal.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to appeal to the Court of Appeal, with no order as to costs.