The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The appeal was administratively dismissed for delay after the appellant failed to perfect it, largely due to a lengthy hospitalization.
The appellant brought a motion to set aside the dismissal, and the respondent landlord brought a cross-motion for security for costs.
The Divisional Court granted the appellant's motion, finding he had an arguable case regarding whether his installation of video cameras constituted substantial interference under the Residential Tenancies Act.
The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion for security for costs, finding no evidence the appeal was vexatious.
