David S. Strashin

The tenant was evicted following a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy.

He brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the decision and for an order permitting him to return to the rented premises pending the appeal, citing language barriers as the reason for missing the deadline.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time and permitted the tenant to return to the premises, subject to conditions including expediting the appeal and paying all rent on time.

The landlords moved to quash the tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the tenants failed to comply with a previous court order requiring them to pay ongoing rent.

The court noted that the landlords' affidavit was inaccurate as it failed to disclose a partial rent payment made by one of the tenants.

Although the tenants did not file responding affidavit evidence, they expressed an intention to pay the arrears.

The court exercised its discretion to deny the motion to quash, instead granting the tenants a short extension to pay the outstanding rent, failing which the landlords could move without notice to quash the appeal and enforce the eviction.

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 landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenant a $10,000 rent abatement for harassment and interference with parking.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of harassment, noting the landlord's threats to report the tenant to social assistance.

However, the court found no evidence to support the finding of parking interference, as the tenant chose to park in an unassigned spot.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the rent abatement was reduced to $6,500.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating her tenancy for failure to pay rent and refusing to set aside the termination order.

The tenant had a history of paying rent late due to the timing of her alimony cheques and had breached a previous conditional order requiring payment by the 10th of each month.

The Divisional Court found that the Board Member committed a breach of natural justice by failing to afford the tenant an opportunity to provide evidence or make submissions concerning relief from forfeiture under s. 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The tenant brought a motion to dismiss the landlord's appeal for delay, arguing the landlord failed to serve and file proof that the transcript of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal proceedings was ordered within the prescribed time.

The landlord had delayed the appeal for nearly two years and only recently ordered the transcript.

The Divisional Court balanced the interests of the parties, noted the substantial change in circumstances including the loss of the residence by fire and change of ownership, and found the landlord responsible for the excessive delay.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of the eviction order, noting the tenant was not paying rent and the notice of appeal raised no question of law.

The court ordered the stay lifted and the appeal quashed unless the tenant paid all arrears, current rent, and costs into court by a specified date.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal eviction order and to set aside the automatic stay.

The eviction was based on the tenant and his guests disturbing the peace of other tenants.

The court found the tenant's appeal was weak, raised no serious questions of law, and appeared designed to extend his occupancy rent-free, as rent for October and November remained unpaid.

The court ordered that the stay of the eviction order would be lifted unless the tenant paid the outstanding and upcoming rent into court by specified dates.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of an order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal requiring her to vacate the premises.

The tenant had orally agreed to move out but subsequently changed her mind and remained in possession, prompting the landlord to obtain an ex parte order.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal raised no question of law as required by s. 196 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, noting that s. 188 dictates substance over form.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the certificate of stay was set aside.

The tenant appealed a Tribunal decision regarding her ability to reasonably participate in a proceeding and a motion to set aside a default order.

The Divisional Court found the appeal to be moot.

Applying the Borowski factors, the court declined to hear the appeal, concluding that the issue was not of public importance requiring prompt resolution.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $1,500.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant argued that the application for vacant possession for the purchasers' own use was improper, that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses, and that the application was made in bad faith.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's grounds did not raise any valid questions of law, as the statute permits possession for purchasers' own use, the evidentiary rulings were not errors of law, and good faith is a question of mixed fact and law.

The appeal was quashed and the stay of the eviction order was vacated.

The tenant gave notice to terminate his residential tenancy, and the landlord subsequently accepted a rental application from a new tenant.

The tenant later requested to delay his departure, which the landlord refused, obtaining an ex parte order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant's motion to set aside the order was denied by the Tribunal.

The tenant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, misapprehension of fact, or wrongful exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in refusing an adjournment or denying discretionary relief.

The self-represented appellant tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal.

The respondent landlord argued the evidence was not fresh but rather evidence the tenant had unsuccessfully tried to adduce before the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence did not meet the established test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a brief endorsement in this appeal, directing the parties to see the endorsement in companion file C37669 for the disposition.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding liability for occupation rent.

The trial judge had found the respondent's parents liable for occupation rent due to their participation in a conspiracy to acquire assets, but found the respondent daughter was not part of the conspiracy and was merely living with her parents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the parents, not the daughter, were liable for the occupation rent until the delivery of possession.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The tenants appealed a Tribunal decision regarding an unauthorized transfer and eviction.

They argued the Tribunal erred by failing to call a crucial witness and by failing to consider evidence that the landlord knew of the unauthorized transfer earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation to call the witness and accepting the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the landlord's knowledge.

The landlord's request to terminate the tenancy was also denied, as it was outside the scope of the appeal and an unauthorized transfer only permits eviction of the unauthorized occupant, not termination of the tenancy.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer their complaints of discrimination based on handicap to a Board of Inquiry.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness because they did not receive full disclosure of the respondents' submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants received the same materials that were before the Commission and had a full opportunity to respond.

The Court held that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was within its discretion.

The landlord appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the termination of a residential tenancy.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's notice did not comply with s. 47(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, and the Tribunal Member erred in law by finding the landlord's Form N4 terminated the tenancy.

Instead, the Court concluded that the parties had reached an agreement to terminate the tenancy, which was finalized when the tenant delivered the keys and the landlord's representative accepted them.

The appeal was allowed in part, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting an eviction for landlord's own use.

A previous application had been dismissed because the landlord was a corporation, which cannot occupy a residential unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator on the second application erred in law by failing to apply res judicata and failing to consider whether the individual respondent was a privy of the corporate landlord.

The adjudicator also failed to weigh evidence of bad faith.

The eviction order was set aside.

The appellants moved to extend the time for filing an appeal from an order of a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court that reinstated the third party's pleadings and set aside a previous costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the underlying order was interlocutory.

Under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act, appeals to the Divisional Court from the Small Claims Court are limited to final orders, meaning the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.