Delaram Jafari

The appellants sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application to evict the respondent tenants for personal use.

The LTB found that the appellants, who transferred a 1% interest in the property from their wholly-owned corporation to themselves days before serving the eviction notice, acted in bad faith to evade the statutory prohibition against corporate landlords evicting for personal use.

The Divisional Court granted an extension of time to appeal but dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no error of law in the LTB's determination that the corporation remained the true landlord.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the unit in good faith for her daughter's residential occupation.

The tenant argued the Board erred by finding good faith without hearing testimony from the landlord, by refusing to join the tenant's maintenance applications, and by relying on a non-compliant statutory declaration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no statutory requirement for the landlord to testify, no breach of procedural fairness in the Board controlling its own procedure, and that the daughter's declaration substantially complied with the statutory requirements.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and seeking compensation for mold damage.

The Board had found the landlord failed to prove the tenant caused the mold and granted the tenant a rent abatement for inadequate ventilation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Board misstated the legal test for causation in its conclusion, the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the Board's factual finding that the tenant did not cause the mold was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued that the notice of termination was invalid because it was signed by the landlord's property manager, and that section 43(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires an agent to be licensed by the Law Society of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's interpretation that the Act does not define 'agent' and does not require an agent signing a notice of termination to be licensed to provide legal services.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the appeal lacked merit and the tenants failed to pay rent.

The court found it would be unfair to proceed with the motion to quash given the short timeframe and the tenants' need to obtain transcripts.

The court adjourned the motion to quash to be heard with the expedited appeal, subject to strict conditions requiring the tenants to pay ongoing and arrears rent, order transcripts, and perfect the appeal.