David S. Strashin

The self-represented appellant tenant requested an adjournment of his appeal because he had not received the hearing transcript and lacked assistance from an amicus.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting that a previous order had made the hearing date peremptory.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy for personal use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding good faith and that the affidavit required by s. 72 of the Residential Tenancies Act should have been sworn by the landlord's son.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the good faith finding was a question of fact not subject to appeal, and that the landlord's affidavit was sufficient as he required the unit for his personal use along with his family.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation based on place of origin and citizenship.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant requested to amend the respondents' names and add an allegation that the respondents demanded 12 months' rent in advance because he was a newcomer to Canada.

The respondents consented to the amendments.

The parties then jointly requested an adjournment because the respondents' counsel had not received the request in time to review the new evidence with his clients.

The Tribunal granted the amendments and the adjournment, and issued directions for the filing of amended pleadings and documents.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of documents relating to cigarette and drug smoke in the stairwells of her building, as well as police records.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the requested documents that were in their possession and to comply with their pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The applicant also requested that her name be anonymized due to the sensitive nature of her mental health evidence.

The Tribunal denied the anonymization request, finding that the evidence of anxiety and PTSD did not justify a departure from the open justice principle.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal and lift the stay of eviction.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding it was not clearly devoid of merit and should be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

However, the court ordered the tenant to pay $15,250 in rent arrears and continue paying $3,050 monthly as a condition of maintaining the stay pending appeal, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

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

The Board had found that the tenant substantially interfered with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants by making excessive noise and unreasonably exhausting the hot water supply.

On appeal, the tenant alleged a conspiracy against her and a denial of her right to counsel, but the court found these were issues of fact, not law.

As the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 restricts appeals to questions of law, the court concluded no issue of law was raised, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that she was not a tenant but a mere occupant of the rental unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was moot because the appellant had already been evicted.

Furthermore, the court held the Board did not err in applying the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, as the appellant occupied the premises with the permission of the actual tenant and was never an unauthorized occupant prior to the termination of the tenancy.

The applicant, who suffers from environmental sensitivities, requested an interim remedy ordering her landlord and property managers to patrol the building's stairwells to prevent smoking and to seal her apartment door against smoke and fumes.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the situation had existed for several years without evidence of a recent acute exacerbation, and therefore the balance of convenience did not favour granting the extraordinary relief of an interim remedy before a full hearing on the merits.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants failed to order a transcript or perfect the appeal, and provided no explanation for the delay.

The court quashed the appeal for failure to perfect and also found it devoid of merit, noting that applying the Small Claims Court monetary cap to the payment of outstanding rent arrears to void an eviction order under section 74(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act would result in an absurdity.

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 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 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 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.