David Strashin

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

The tenants appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal terminating their tenancy and ordering vacant possession.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal or lift the stay pending appeal.

The tenants were represented by a paralegal.

The court held that paralegals are not authorized by law to represent parties in court on residential tenancy matters, including excess claims and appeals, as the Rules of Civil Procedure apply and the Law Society Act prohibits non-lawyers from practising law.

The court lifted the stay regarding the payment of rent but maintained the stay on the eviction order provided the appeal was heard promptly.