David S. Strashin

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.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant had not paid any rent since moving in and failed to comply with a Board consent order requiring payment of rent into the Board.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was completely devoid of merit, raised no genuine questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed solely to prolong a rent-free existence.

The motion was granted, the appeal was dismissed, the stay was vacated, and the landlord was awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The tenant brought an urgent motion for a stay of enforcement of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

His previous appeal of the Board's order had been quashed for being devoid of merit.

The tenant sought a stay pending a motion to vary the order quashing his appeal.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found the tenant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured him, noting he had not paid rent since September 2015.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs awarded to the landlord.

The landlord and tenant, who are siblings, entered into a residential tenancy agreement that granted the tenant the right to occupy the basement for her lifetime.

The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy for his daughter's use.

The Landlord and Tenant Board granted the application, finding the life tenancy provision illogical and contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Court held that the parties clearly intended a life tenancy, and such an agreement does not violate the Act, as the landlord's statutory termination rights can still be exercised upon the tenant's death.

The appeal was allowed.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability (medical marijuana use) against his landlord and its agents, primarily related to eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board and a Small Claims Court action.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations at the outset of the hearing, finding that the respondents' actions and statements in the legal proceedings were protected by absolute privilege.

Following this ruling and an unsuccessful mediation attempt, the applicant left the hearing room and did not return.

The Tribunal found the applicant had abandoned the applications and dismissed them in their entirety.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination, the applicant sought to add a former representative of the respondents as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the late stage of the proceedings, the applicant's previous confirmation that he did not wish to add her, and the absence of any issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to respond to or remedy an alleged Code violation.

The Tribunal also provided directions for the continuation of the hearing, including addressing issues of absolute privilege and sections 45.1 and 34(11) of the Code.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to vacate the automatic stay.

The tenant did not respond or appear.

The court found the tenant's appeal failed to raise any legitimate question of law, was devoid of merit, and was brought merely to delay the proceedings following a history of non-compliance with court orders to pay rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, the stay was vacated, and the eviction was ordered to be enforced forthwith.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The Board had terminated the tenancy for failure to pay rent and persistent late payment.

The tenant's appeal automatically stayed the eviction.

The court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal challenged factual findings or raised issues that did not amount to questions of law, such as complaints about interim orders and adjournment refusals.

Concluding that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and that the tenant was using it to live rent-free, the court granted the motion, quashed the appeal, and lifted the stay of eviction.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to implement non-monetary public interest remedies, including drafting a service animal policy and completing human rights training.

The respondents failed to file a response and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found a breach of the settlement and ordered the respondents to comply with the outstanding terms.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the distress caused by the respondents' failure to implement the remedies, which left her fearful of returning to the respondents' building.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board which found that he had abandoned his rental unit.

The Board had concluded that rent was in arrears because the September 2010 rent cheque was paid by a third party rather than the tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Residential Tenancies Act permits rent to be paid on behalf of a tenant by a third party.

Since the rent was paid, the statutory precondition for abandonment was not met, and the matter was remitted to the Board to determine a remedy.

The moving party tenant sought to set aside an order quashing her appeal, arguing she was not properly served with the motion materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the underlying appeal was moot because the tenant had already been evicted and the court lacked jurisdiction to award damages for wrongful eviction on appeal.

The court also declined to set aside the previous costs order, noting the tenant had actual knowledge of the hearing.

No costs were awarded for the present motion.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy so the landlords' son could move into the unit.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law regarding the good faith requirement, maintenance breaches, human rights accommodation, and the landlords' corporate status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations on good faith and maintenance were unappealable questions of fact, the eviction was unrelated to the tenant's disabilities, and the individual landlords met the statutory definition of a landlord.

The Tribunal held a remedy hearing following a finding that the respondent breached the applicant's rights by failing to accommodate her chemical sensitivity.

The applicant did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the objective seriousness of the respondent's conduct in ignoring her accommodation requests.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent's managerial employees to complete human rights training.

The landlord moved to quash the tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenants for persistently failing to pay rent.

The landlord claimed $11,200 in outstanding rent, while the Board advised that the tenants had paid $5,600 into the Board for a separate application.

The court found that the appeal was not clearly devoid of merit on the limited materials provided.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash on strict terms, ordering the tenants to pay $5,600 in arrears and $1,600 in ongoing monthly rent, failing which the landlord could move without notice to dismiss the appeal and lift the stay.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy.

The tenant had submitted a notice to terminate but later tried to rescind it, which the landlord refused.

The Board ordered termination and dismissed the tenant's motion to set aside.

The tenant appealed, arguing the project was a condominium conversion giving her security of tenure under s. 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found the appeal manifestly devoid of merit as the project was clearly a demolition, not a conversion.

The motion to quash was granted and the certificate of stay was lifted.

The applicant, a tenant with environmental sensitivities, alleged that the respondent landlord discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disability.

The applicant provided medical notes indicating that fumes from paint and varnish used in nearby apartments caused her to become ill.

The respondent argued the medical evidence was insufficient and took no steps to accommodate her.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a disability and a need for accommodation, and that the respondent failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship, thereby breaching her rights under the Human Rights Code.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution after neighbours initiated private criminal charges alleging assault, mischief, and uttering death threats arising from a series of neighbourhood disputes.

The criminal charges were later withdrawn by the Crown after concerns they were being used to gain advantage in ongoing civil litigation.

The court applied the four-part test from Nelles v Ontario and found the defendants initiated the proceedings, the charges terminated in the plaintiff’s favour, there was no reasonable and probable cause, and the prosecution was motivated by an improper collateral purpose.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence over the defendants’ and concluded the charges were laid maliciously.

General damages and reimbursement of legal fees incurred defending the criminal charges were awarded.

The respondent landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively for an order requiring payment of rent arrears and ongoing rent, and security for costs.

The landlords argued the appeal was devoid of merit and filed solely for delay.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding it was not clearly devoid of merit without a full hearing.

However, the court ordered the tenant to perfect the appeal within 60 days and pay $14,993 in arrears plus ongoing monthly rent, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision regarding a landlord and tenant dispute, raising an issue of estoppel based on a 2012 final order concerning the description of the premises.

The Divisional Court found the issue to be hypothetical and, applying the doctrine of mootness from Borowski, declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no order as to costs.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent.

After failing to comply with an order by Wilton-Siegel J. to pay rent arrears, the appeal was dismissed by the Registrar.

The tenant obtained a stay and a peremptory hearing date before a full panel of the Divisional Court.

At the hearing, the tenant requested an adjournment, which was denied.

The court dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay, noting the tenant had filed no materials, continued to live in the premises without paying rent, and failed to comply with previous orders.