David S. Strashin

The tenant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's decision dismissing her motion for leave to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board consent eviction order.

The Divisional Court panel held that under the newly enacted Rule 62.02(1)3, leave to appeal a tribunal order requiring leave must be heard by a three-judge panel, not a single judge.

The panel set aside the single judge's decision, heard the leave motion, and granted leave to appeal the eviction order.

The appellant residential tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord Tenant Board dismissing his motion to set aside an eviction order.

The central issue on appeal was whether the LTB Vice Chair denied the appellant procedural fairness by refusing his request for an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found that the Vice Chair properly exercised his discretion in denying the adjournment, noting the appellant's lack of diligence, failure to provide supporting documentation, and failure to participate remotely.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an order requiring them to pay $45,397.40 in rent arrears to the landlord.

They argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matter should have been heard by the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging the landlord artificially inflated the arrears by refusing rent to exceed the Board's monetary limit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly exercised jurisdiction under s. 207(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, as the claim exceeded the Board's $35,000 limit, and there was no evidence the landlord improperly inflated the arrears.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board, which allowed the respondent landlord to re-occupy the residential premises.

The tenant argued the Board erred in interpreting a lease renewal provision, mischaracterized a rent increase clause, and denied procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons on review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly interpreted the lease provision using a practical common-sense approach and that the review process met the requirements of procedural fairness under the Baker factors.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting a rent abatement to a tenant for noise interference caused by a neighbouring child with autism.

The LTB had found the landlord failed to investigate soundproofing options.

On appeal, the landlord argued the LTB failed to consider its limitations under the Human Rights Code regarding the child's disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the issue was raised for the first time on appeal and the LTB's order to investigate soundproofing did not require an impermissible eviction or discriminate against the child.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to order his return to a rental unit after he was evicted.

The landlord had obtained an eviction order claiming her disabled son needed the unit, but the tenant was not notified of the hearing.

The Board later granted a review but refused to reinstate the tenant based on the landlord's unsworn statement that her son was occupying the unit.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence showing the landlord had actually re-rented the unit to a third party at a higher rent.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by relying on unsworn, false statements.

The Court ordered the tenant immediately reinstated to the unit and remitted the issue of further remedies for the landlord's abuse of process back to the Board.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to return possession of a luxury rental home to the tenants.

The landlords had changed the locks and moved back into the home after discovering the tenants were residing in Dubai, arguing the tenancy was no longer residential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction despite parallel Superior Court proceedings, the Board application was not an abuse of process, and the Board correctly interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act.

Crucially, the Court held that the term 'vacant' in s. 31(3) of the Act must be interpreted to exclude situations where a landlord illegally terminates a tenancy and moves into the unit, allowing the Board to restore possession to the wrongfully evicted tenants.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use, arguing the application was retaliatory and in bad faith under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the documents were available before the hearing and were an attempt to reargue facts.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenants' arguments regarding retaliation, the landlord's conduct, and procedural fairness were essentially challenges to the LTB's factual findings, which do not constitute extricable errors of law.

The tenant brought a motion for interim relief pending his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenant had been evicted based on the landlord's claim that her son required the unit, but the tenant presented new evidence suggesting the unit was re-rented to a non-family member.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and the Board's jurisdiction.

Balancing the factors, the court granted an interim order prohibiting the landlord from re-renting or changing the current use of the premises by family members until the appeal is heard, and expedited the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply to his tenancy under the s. 5(j) business exemption.

The Board found the predominant purpose of the tenancy was to operate an Airbnb short-term rental business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test and the tenant's challenge raised issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The tenants brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board order that required the landlords to return possession of the rental unit.

The landlords had previously exercised self-help to evict the tenants while they were out of the country.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to lift the stay, finding the tenants failed to demonstrate unusual hardship as they were residing in Dubai and had no firm plans to return.

The court also dismissed the tenants' alternative requests for an interlocutory injunction and a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The appellants (tenants) appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

At the hearing, the self-represented appellant requested a two-week adjournment.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting that the date was peremptory, previous adjournment requests had been denied, and the appellant had failed to comply with directions to file materials despite numerous accommodations.

As the appellants filed no materials to support their appeal, the appeal was dismissed.

The stay of the eviction order was lifted, with eviction delayed until May 1, 2022, and costs of $3,500 were awarded to the landlord.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenants argued the eviction was retaliatory because they had attempted to enforce their legal rights regarding illegal rent increases and maintenance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board member correctly applied the legal test under section 83(3)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act and afforded the tenants procedural fairness.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to extend the time to review a prior Board decision.

The Divisional Court issued a notice considering dismissal under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant failed to make written submissions.

The court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant's pattern of non-attendance, non-compliance with deadlines, and delay tactics to extend the stay of his eviction.

The appellant sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to extend the time to review a prior decision.

The respondent landlord requested the appeal be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an abuse of process, noting the appellant had already appealed the prior decision and had it quashed.

The Divisional Court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the appellant under Rule 2.1.01 to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the appeal pending the outcome.

The respondent landlords brought a motion to quash the appellant tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants had failed to pay rent for over a year and failed to comply with a prior court order to pay rent pending the appeal.

The court found that the tenants' appeal raised no question of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

Furthermore, the court held that the appeal was an abuse of process, brought solely to allow the tenants to live rent-free while the court process played out.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay of proceedings was vacated.

The respondent landlords moved to quash the appellant tenants' appeal from Landlord Tenant Board decisions.

The motion was based on the appeal being out of time (dismissed by a prior judge) and lacking merit as it raised no question of law, and constituted an abuse of process due to the tenants' failure to pay rent and lack of good faith.

The court found no question of law and concluded the appeal was an abuse of process, quashing the appeal and vacating the stay of proceedings.

The landlord brought an urgent motion to enforce an eviction order during the COVID-19 provincial eviction moratorium, arguing the tenant's continued occupancy jeopardized a real estate closing.

The court first determined that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the order after dismissing the appeal, but the parties agreed to have the judge hear it as a motion for directions under Rule 60.17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sitting as a Superior Court judge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the landlord's evidence of harm speculative and noting the moratorium was intended to protect tenants like the respondent, who was unable to move because his new landlord could not evict the existing tenant due to the pandemic.

The self-represented tenant sought urgent relief from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The tenant had previously failed to comply with a court order to pay disputed rent into court, resulting in the dismissal of her appeal.

The court dismissed the urgent motion as moot without an oral hearing, noting that the Chief Justice had already issued a blanket order suspending the enforcement of all residential evictions during the pandemic.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent and damages.

The tenant brought a motion to extend the time to perfect her appeal, arguing the Board failed to accommodate her disabilities by denying an adjournment and a request to participate by telephone.

The landlord brought a cross-motion to quash the appeal as manifestly devoid of merit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's motion, finding the appeal raised a valid question of law regarding procedural fairness.

The court granted the tenant's motion to extend the time to perfect the appeal, but on the condition that she pay all outstanding and ongoing rent.