Cumming J.

The estate trustee and a residual beneficiary appealed a trial judgment that found the deceased's daughter and grandchildren were dependants under the Succession Law Reform Act and ordered the estate to be kept open indefinitely to provide them housing.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the will failed to adequately provide for the dependants.

However, the Court found the trial judge's administrative scheme, which required the estate to obtain a mortgage it could not afford, was impossible to implement.

The Court varied the order, directing the property be transferred to the dependant daughter, who must obtain a mortgage to pay estate debts and a lump sum to the residual beneficiary, with the property to be sold in 2018 and proceeds divided.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the Board erred in finding the landlord acted in good faith and that the notice of termination was sufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Member's decision.

The Court also dismissed the tenant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting it would not have changed the finding of good faith.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating his tenancy and ordering him to pay rent arrears.

The tenant argued that he had a private agreement with the landlord's property manager to freeze his rent indefinitely, and that the landlord was estopped from resiling from this agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 2(1) of the Tenant Protection Act prohibits landlords and tenants from contracting out of the Act's provisions, even where the agreement benefits the tenant.

The court also held that the doctrine of estoppel cannot override a clear statutory prohibition.