Doug Letto

The appellant tenant appealed an LTB order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

He argued procedural unfairness because the LTB member had initially dismissed the landlord's application at a hearing scheduled in error, but then reversed the dismissal and rescheduled the hearing.

The tenant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, and the eviction order was made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, as the LTB member was correcting a mistake and the tenant had received notice of the new hearing date.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to dismiss his application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The underlying application sought damages for alleged mistreatment by a housing corporation after the appellant was denied a housing subsidy and assessed a rent increase.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the application bore the hallmarks of querulous litigant behaviour and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation RGI Review Body that refused to review her rent-geared-to-income calculations from 2010 to 2017.

The Review Body had determined that the request was beyond the 12-month deadline and did not meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances.

The Divisional Court found that the Review Body unreasonably interpreted its own rules by concluding that a hard 12-month cap applied even if exceptional circumstances existed.

The court also held that the Review Body fettered its discretion and failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusion that exceptional circumstances were not met.

The application was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order dismissing the tenant's motion to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant had failed to pay rent for over two years and breached a mediated settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was an abuse of process designed to obtain an automatic stay of eviction and was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no questions of law.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application regarding the landlord's handling of a bedbug infestation.

The tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence, which was dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant failed to identify any error of law in the Board's interpretation of s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act or its factual findings, and rejected allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits for physiotherapy following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal accepted the independent medical examination evidence that the applicant suffered only soft tissue injuries and had reached maximum medical recovery, noting her significant pre-accident medical history and lack of evidence meeting the criteria for chronic pain.

The claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant, a minor, sought court approval for a settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits claim and leave to amend her notice of application.

The court granted leave to amend, approved the $100,000 settlement, and approved a solicitor-client account for fees and disbursements, with the settlement funds to be paid directly to the applicant upon her 18th birthday.

The court declined to approve the contingency fee agreement due to deficiencies.

The appellant appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice dated June 27, 2017.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was not within its monetary jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Divisional Court.

Costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion and the granting of the defendants' motion, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court rejected the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs and found their claimed amount of $26,000 to be excessive.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court also resolved a dispute over the discovery plan, ordering that cross-examinations could be used as examinations for discovery for trial purposes.

The parties were involved in a commercial joint venture dispute.

The defendants brought a motion to release $50,000 held in trust that stood in place of a previously issued Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a sold property.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to issue new CPLs against two other properties owned by the defendants, alleging joint venture funds were diverted to purchase or improve them.

The court granted the defendants' motion to release the funds and dismissed the plaintiff's motion for new CPLs, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a direct connection between the joint venture funds and the properties, and thus had no triable issue regarding an interest in land.

The plaintiff was granted unopposed leave to amend her statement of claim.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old senior designer, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer, Thumper Massager Inc., alleging wrongful termination without proper notice or pay in lieu thereof after less than six months of probationary employment.

The plaintiff sought damages for pay in lieu of notice, expenses, and benefits.

The court found that the plaintiff was bound by the six-month probationary period in his employment contract and that the employer was entitled to dismiss a probationary employee without cause or notice, provided the assessment of suitability was not performed in bad faith.

The court determined that the defendant had provided a fair opportunity to the plaintiff and did not act in bad faith in terminating his employment.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of sole beneficial ownership of a residential property, alleging her brother, the defendant, held title as a bare trustee.

The defendant counter-claimed for a declaration of co-ownership as a joint tenant with a beneficial interest.

The court found the defendant to be more credible, concluding that he acquired a beneficial interest in the property by purchasing the ex-boyfriend's share, assuming the mortgage, and making significant contributions to improvements and arrears, which were inconsistent with acting as a bare trustee or making gratuitous payments.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and granted the defendant's declaration of 50% legal and beneficial ownership, subject to an accounting.