D. Levitt

The moving party, a non-tenant occupant of a residential unit, brought a motion asking the Divisional Court to reconsider its decision dismissing the tenant's appeal of Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders, and to add her as a party.

The moving party had not participated in the initial Board hearing or the appeal before it was heard.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not in the interests of justice to reopen the appeal, as the moving party should have raised her issues before the Board and appealed in a timely manner.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy based on an N12 notice for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board erred by not requiring the landlord to use an N13 notice for renovations, and by applying a 'primary motivation' test that ignored a ten-month delay before the landlord would occupy the unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The court held that a landlord is not required to use the N13 process if they meet the requirements of section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the Board's finding of good faith was a factual determination outside the court's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed Landlord and Tenant Board orders finding he was not a member of the respondent housing co-operative and ordering his eviction.

The appellant had previously resigned his membership and his ex-spouse, the remaining member, had abandoned the unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal solely on the basis that the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict an unauthorized occupant (non-member) from a co-op, a point conceded by the respondent.

The appellant's other grounds of appeal, including claims regarding notice, membership status, and standing to challenge his ex-spouse's eviction, were dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed three eviction orders and a review order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent and committing illegal acts.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding he committed illegal acts because he was acquitted of the related criminal charges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applies a different standard of proof and is permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict for illegal acts without a criminal conviction.

The court found no errors of law in the Board's assessment of the evidence, its refusal to grant relief from eviction, or its procedural fairness.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenants' appeal for delay and to lift the automatic stay of eviction.

The tenants had failed to perfect their appeal within the prescribed time, failed to comply with court-ordered payment directions, and did not respond to the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for delay by analogy to Rule 61.13(3.1) and ordered the tenants to pay costs.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners due to excessive hoarding and clutter in their unit.

The clutter created a significant fire and safety hazard, breaching the Condominium Act and the corporation's declarations.

The respondents failed to remedy the situation despite multiple opportunities and refused entry to the applicant.

The court granted the compliance order, permitting the applicant to enter the unit to remove the clutter at the respondents' expense, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The landlords brought a motion to dismiss or quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order that terminated his tenancy.

The tenant had remained in the rental unit without paying rent and failed to perfect his appeal or order transcripts.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant had engaged in a pattern of delay, made misrepresentations to the court, and filed the appeal solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction.

The appeal was dismissed for delay, failure to obtain leave, and as an abuse of process.

The landlords were granted immediate vacant possession and awarded substantial indemnity costs.