Douglas H. Levitt

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her after a cooking fire caused extensive damage to the residential complex.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence that the landlord illegally locked her out of the unit after repairs were completed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to permit evidence of the alleged lockout prevented it from considering all circumstances as required by section 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The eviction order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Board.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,142.00.

The tenant appealed an Eviction Order and a Review Order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which upheld her eviction for non-payment of rent and dismissed her claim for a rent abatement due to an HVAC noise issue.

The tenant argued the Board erred in its factual findings regarding when the noise was resolved and whether the landlord acted reasonably.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's grounds of appeal raised questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court also upheld the Review Member's refusal to admit new evidence.

The moving party sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering eviction and payment of rent arrears.

The moving party required an extension of time to file the notice of appeal but failed to file the required motion materials by the court-ordered deadline.

As a result, the motion could not proceed, no appeal was pending, and the automatic stay of eviction was lifted.

The landlord brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which had proceeded in the landlord's absence.

The landlord argued the Board erred in finding it had been properly served with notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the validity of notice and due diligence are questions of fact, not law, and therefore cannot be appealed under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court awarded costs of $3,500 to the tenant.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlords' application to terminate the tenancy for demolition.

The tenant argued the planned work was a renovation, which would afford a right of first refusal to re-occupy the unit, rather than a demolition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB applied the correct legal test for demolition and that the tenant's arguments amounted to an impermissible attempt to reargue findings of fact.

The eviction was delayed due to the tenant's personal circumstances.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order due to delay.

The tenant had previously appealed an eviction order, which was dismissed, and subsequently brought a motion to void the eviction order, which was also dismissed.

The tenant appealed the dismissal of the voiding order but failed to perfect the appeal by the court-ordered deadline.

Finding that the tenant's actions were a further attempt to delay the eviction, the court dismissed the appeal.

No costs were awarded as the landlord failed to file a bill of costs.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to appeal and apply for judicial review of three Landlord and Tenant Board orders, including a 2023 eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant's challenges were brought after the statutory deadlines had passed.

The Divisional Court denied the extension for the 2022 orders and the judicial review application due to lengthy delay and lack of merit.

However, the court granted a short extension of time to appeal the 2023 eviction order, imposing strict conditions including the payment of ongoing rent.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant previously declared a vexatious litigant in three separate orders, sought leave to bring a motion to reinstate his appeals after they were dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the moving party failed to perfect the appeals despite being capable of filing voluminous materials.

The court further held that the underlying appeals were entirely devoid of merit and that the interests of justice would not be served by permitting the matter to proceed.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the court determined costs for both a preliminary motion and the appeal.

The respondent condominium corporation sought costs after successfully opposing a motion to strike portions of its factum and compendium.

The appellant management company sought substantial costs for the appeal after the court allowed the appeal and found the trial judge’s reasons insufficient.

The court applied Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that the requested appeal costs were slightly disproportionate to the value of the underlying claim.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondent for the preliminary motion, and $10,000 all-inclusive costs were awarded to the appellant for the appeal.

The appellant property management company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its breach of contract claim arising from the termination of a three‑year property management agreement.

The respondent condominium corporation had terminated the agreement for cause, alleging insubordination, recklessness, or gross negligence.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient because they failed to clearly identify which acts constituted cause for termination or explain why individually insufficient acts collectively justified termination.

The absence of adequate reasoning prevented meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different deputy judge.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board on review, which had reversed an earlier order dismissing the landlords' application to terminate the tenancy for personal use.

The original Board Member found the landlords' notice was not given in good faith and that they were in serious breach of their responsibilities.

The reviewing Board Member found the original member erred by considering the reasonableness of the landlords' motives.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the reviewing member unreasonably restricted the meaning of 'good faith' by excluding consideration of motives, and unreasonably failed to address the landlords' serious breach of responsibilities.

The original order dismissing the termination application was restored.

Following earlier reasons on an application concerning rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued that the respondent’s claimed costs were excessive due to court waiting time and time spent preparing brief cost submissions.

The court agreed the matter did not warrant substantial indemnity costs and instead assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

After reviewing both parties’ submissions and the bill of costs, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount payable to the respondent’s solicitors.

A tenant brought an application seeking a declaration that the Landlord and Tenant Board lacked jurisdiction to hear a landlord’s arrears of rent application because the tenant had vacated the unit before the hearing and because the named landlord was allegedly not a legal entity.

The court considered the interpretation of s. 87(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and the scope of the Board’s authority.

The court held that jurisdiction is established if the tenant was in possession of the rental unit when the landlord’s application was filed.

Issues relating to jurisdiction or the identity of the landlord should be raised before the Board itself.

The application was dismissed as the proper forum to determine the issues was the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant purchased a nearly 100-year-old home from the respondent and subsequently discovered several defects, including water damage, unconnected plumbing, and electrical issues.

She sued for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation in Small Claims Court, but her claim was dismissed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation and that the appellant, who had obtained a home inspection and negotiated a second offer, did not rely on any alleged misrepresentations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had failed to pay rent since the beginning of the lease, accumulating over $25,000 in arrears, and had repeatedly provided dishonoured cheques to delay eviction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the appeal was devoid of merit, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed solely to manipulate the automatic stay provisions and live rent-free.

The court dismissed the appeal, awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlord, and called for legislative amendments to restrict the right of appeal in residential tenancy cases to prevent such abuses.

The tenant appealed an order affirming his eviction by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The landlord, a corporation, sought possession of the rental unit for the personal use of its sole shareholder.

The tenant argued that a corporation cannot require possession for personal use and that the corporate veil should not be pierced to benefit the landlord.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sole shareholder, as the directing mind who permits occupancy, falls within the definition of 'landlord' under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court also found that the Board properly relied on s. 202 to disregard the separate corporate existence to ascertain the real substance of the transaction.