David S. Strashin

The moving party, Paul Taylor, sought to vary a motion judge's order that granted a stay of an eviction order on terms, specifically challenging the requirement to pay rent arrears.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's decision, which had properly applied the test for a stay and respected principles for self-represented litigants.

The court concluded that the motion judge's decision represented an appropriate balancing of all relevant factors and competing interests.

The tenant's appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy was previously dismissed.

The court received written submissions on costs from the respondent landlord, but none from the appellant tenant.

The court fixed costs payable to the respondent in the amount of $4,000 all-inclusive.

A tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order to the Divisional Court, claiming the Board failed to accommodate his disabilities by refusing to grant an adjournment when he called on the morning of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit and for failure to perfect.

The tenant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the proper procedure was a motion to set aside or vary before a Divisional Court panel, but agreed to hear the matter as if such a motion had been properly brought.

The Court upheld the dismissal, finding the Board member reasonably exercised discretion in refusing the adjournment given the tenant's prior notice, failure to use available rescheduling procedures, pattern of requesting adjournments, and non-payment of rent.

The applicant housing co-operative brought a motion to quash the respondent member's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The co-operative argued the appeal did not disclose a question of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the member raised sufficient legal issues regarding procedural fairness and the application of the Residential Tenancies Act to warrant a full hearing before a panel.

The member was ordered to continue paying housing charges pending the appeal.

The tenant brought a motion seeking leave to extend the time to bring a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a previous decision quashing her appeal.

The tenant had been evicted and sought an order directing the landlord to lease her comparable premises.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the proposed motion lacked merit, as the motion judge made no error in finding the tenant failed to provide evidence supporting her requests for delay at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her for unreasonably refusing the landlord entry to her unit.

The tenant argued the Board Member was biased, failed to provide adequate reasons, and made unreasonable findings of fact, particularly regarding allegations of racism against the landlord's superintendent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, that the reasons were adequate, and that the Member's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for rent arrears.

The tenant argued she was denied procedural fairness when the Board proceeded in her absence after denying her adjournment requests.

The Divisional Court found that the Board's decision to deny the adjournment was a discretionary exercise based on the facts, and the tenant raised no arguable question of law.

The appeal was quashed as manifestly devoid of merit.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing it was an abuse of process and an appeal of a consent order requiring leave.

The tenant argued she was denied procedural fairness at the LTB hearing because her legal representative agreed to the eviction without her understanding or authorization, and the LTB member did not confirm her consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the LTB order was not a true consent order and the tenant raised a viable issue of procedural fairness that warranted a full appeal hearing.

The landlord appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to various rental units, despite the parties having signed commercial lease agreements.

The LTB found that the true nature of the tenancies was residential, based on representations by the landlord's superintendents and the actual use of the units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a premise is a rental unit and to ascertain the real substance of the transaction under section 202 of the Act, and that these were findings of fact not reviewable on appeal.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to a unit leased under a commercial lease agreement.

The tenant used the unit primarily as a living space and incidentally for creating artwork.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably applied section 202 of the Act to ascertain the true nature of the tenancy, and that the Board's factual findings regarding the predominant use of the unit were not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for unpaid legal fees against his family's business.

The appellant argued he had a historical oral retainer with the company, established when his father ran it, which should apply to the disputed accounts.

The trial judge found no oral agreement existed for the specific accounts, noting the appellant delayed billing until after his sister took over the company and failed to inform her of the liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and rejecting the appellant's new argument of unjust enrichment because it was not pleaded at trial.

The tenant appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including an eviction order based on the landlord's good faith intention to personally occupy the rental unit.

The appeals were dismissed by the Registrar for delay after the tenant failed to perfect them.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside the dismissal orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the tenant's lack of diligence, the appeals lacked merit as they raised questions of fact rather than law, and the justice of the case favoured the landlord, whose life had been put on hold by the delay.

The appellant landlord brought a motion to vary a single judge's order that had dismissed her four ongoing proceedings against the respondent tenants.

The single judge had dismissed the proceedings because the appellant was absent, her husband was unauthorized to act as her agent, and the proceedings were improperly perfected.

On the motion to vary, the appellant was represented by counsel, curing the representation defect.

The Divisional Court granted the motion in part, permitting the statutory appeal to continue while dismissing the other duplicative proceedings.

The plaintiff subcontractor appealed a Small Claims Court order striking out its claims for unpaid invoices and breach of trust as statute-barred.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring uncontradicted evidence that the defendants' promises to pay may have extended the limitation period.

The court also held it was premature to strike the breach of trust claims before documentary discovery could establish when the contractor received funds from the owner, which triggers the trust and the limitation period.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that dismissed her application to set aside an ex parte eviction order.

The ex parte order was issued after the tenant breached a prior consent order regarding rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that it raised no question of law and that the tenant could not use section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act to re-litigate issues already resolved by the consent order.

No costs were awarded due to the tenant's financial hardship and personal circumstances.

The plaintiffs, who had resided in the property for over 25 years, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant property owner from interfering with their use of the home pending the resolution of their constructive trust claim.

The defendant had previously attempted to evict the plaintiffs and breached an interim order by attending the property.

The court applied the three-part test for an injunction and found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if evicted and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board that terminated their tenancy and ordered them to vacate the premises due to rent arrears.

The tenants argued the Board made factual errors, demonstrated bias, and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no basis to interfere with the Board's calculation of arrears.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting her so the landlord could use the basement unit for storage related to her personal occupation of the rest of the house.

The tenant argued that storage did not constitute 'residential occupation' under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and that the Vice-Chair showed bias by initiating a review of a previous order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's interpretation of 'residential occupation' to be reasonable and concluding there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay rent arrears, less an abatement for maintenance issues.

The tenant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction due to a defective notice of termination, erred in calculating arrears without viva voce evidence, and wrongly limited his abatement claim to one year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably allowed the landlord to proceed with a claim for arrears only, properly relied on documentary evidence of arrears, and correctly applied the one-year limitation period for maintenance claims.

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

The tenants had failed to pay rent for over a year and did not comply with the Board's interim orders.

The tenants appealed the eviction order, which automatically stayed the eviction, allowing them to remain in the premises rent-free.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit, raised no valid questions of law, and was brought solely for the purpose of delay.

The appeal was quashed as an abuse of process and costs were awarded to the landlords.