Eli Theodore Fellman

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of a single judge quashing his motion to hold a Landlord and Tenant Board member in contempt.

The moving party argued the single judge lacked jurisdiction to quash the motion.

The Divisional Court held that the single judge had jurisdiction under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that a finding of contempt against a Board member is precluded by adjudicative immunity.

Finding no error in the single judge's decision, the court dismissed the motion.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order that confirmed an ex parte eviction order against her.

The appellant had negotiated a verbal lease with the property manager after the original tenant vacated.

The Board found she was merely an occupant because the property manager lacked authority under general agency law to bind the landlord.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to consider whether the property manager met the expansive definition of 'landlord' under section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a hearing de novo.

The moving party, a tenant, brought a motion to stay an eviction and a costs award pending his motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The tenant had previously consented to an order terminating the tenancy and requiring him to move out.

The Divisional Court had denied leave to appeal the Landlord and Tenant Board's decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that the tenant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the Divisional Court mistakenly declined jurisdiction, and that the balance of convenience favoured the landlords given the significant rent arrears and the tenant's prior agreement to vacate.

The tenant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a single judge's decision dismissing her motion for leave to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board consent eviction order.

The Divisional Court panel held that under the newly enacted Rule 62.02(1)3, leave to appeal a tribunal order requiring leave must be heard by a three-judge panel, not a single judge.

The panel set aside the single judge's decision, heard the leave motion, and granted leave to appeal the eviction order.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous.

The plaintiff, self-represented, failed to file written submissions in response to the court's notice.

The court dismissed the action, finding it frivolous on its face.

The action challenged a decision of an adjudicator at the Landlord Tenant Tribunal, alleging the decision was void and unlawful.

The court found the action lacked legal basis and merit, noting that the adjudicator was protected by adjudicative immunity and that any challenges to the decision should be raised on appeal to the Divisional Court, not in a free-standing civil action.

The court, upon referral from the registrar's office following a written request from the defendant's counsel, reviewed the statement of claim and determined that it may be frivolous and vexatious.

The court directed the registrar to provide notice to the plaintiff in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the action.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The registrar was directed to accept no further filings except the plaintiff's written submissions in accordance with Rule 2.1.01(3).

The court retained seizin of the matter.

The tenant sought leave to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order terminating her tenancy for rent arrears, arguing the order was invalid because it lacked a mandatory 'pay and stay' voiding clause under s. 74(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that under s. 194 of the Act, parties can agree to settlements that contravene other provisions of the Act.

As the tenant consented to the order with the assistance of counsel and an interpreter, and there was no evidence of fraud or duress, the high threshold for appealing a consent order was not met.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a rent abatement to the tenant.

The tenant's unit was rendered uninhabitable by a fire caused by a neighbour, but the tenant continued paying rent until the tenancy was terminated by consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination that the landlord breached its maintenance obligations under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act was a question of mixed fact and law, over which the court had no jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the court held the LTB's decision to award an abatement was correct in law.

Following a fire in a residential complex, the landlords refused to allow tenants to return to their units despite the City of Sarnia clearing the units for occupancy.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the landlords had illegally locked out the tenants, substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment, and engaged in harassment.

The Board awarded damages and imposed administrative fines totalling $525,000.

The landlords appealed and sought judicial review on several grounds, including procedural fairness, damages awards, and the quantum of the fines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and applications for judicial review, except for the issue of naming the principal of the corporate landlord as a 'landlord' personally, which was remitted to the Board due to a lack of procedural fairness.

The plaintiff, Jean-Marie Dixon, sought to conduct Rule 39.03 examinations of three witnesses (Registrar of HRTO, former ALOC president, and Crown counsel) in preparation for a jurisdiction motion brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (HMK).

HMK, the Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC), and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) each moved to quash the respective summonses.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's preliminary motion to strike portions of HMK's material.

The court granted all motions to quash, finding that the evidence sought was not relevant to the jurisdiction motion, was protected by statutory privilege (for HRTO Registrar) or solicitor-client privilege (for Crown counsel), or constituted an abuse of process as a fishing expedition for the underlying claim's merits.

The tenant appealed an eviction order and a subsequent review order of the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging procedural unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias by the reviewing Member.

The tenant claimed he did not receive notice of the original hearing and that the reviewing Member improperly restricted his representative's conduct during the review hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness or bias, and held that the Member's conduct was a reasonable exercise of discretion to manage the hearing expeditiously.

The self-represented tenants brought a motion to extend the time for serving and filing a motion to vary a previous order that lifted a stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting the tenants missed the deadline by almost a month without a reasonable explanation.

Furthermore, the court held that the tenants could not seek relief while remaining in breach of ongoing court orders to pay rent and outstanding arrears.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board and were previously directed to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent to maintain a stay of eviction.

The tenants failed to pay, arguing they were entitled to see the original lease and a forensic accounting, and raised various constitutional arguments.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the stay, while the tenants moved for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The court lifted the stay due to the tenants' refusal to pay lawful rent, but granted the tenants an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Board's order, and remitted the motion for an extension of time back to the Board to be heard in a procedurally fair process.

The tenant appealed five separate Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders to the Divisional Court, obtaining automatic stays of eviction.

The tenant failed to perfect the appeals, order transcripts, or pay rent and arrears as directed by the court.

The court found the tenant was abusing the court's process to delay eviction while profiting from subtenancies.

Two appeals were dismissed as abandoned, and the remaining three were quashed for delay and abuse of process.

The stays of eviction were lifted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the landlords.

The appellant, who acted as an agent and landlord but was not the property owner, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding him jointly liable for a bad faith eviction under s. 57 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued the LTB erred in law by failing to apportion liability between the multiple landlords based on their respective roles, as he lacked the legal authority to sell the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the RTA is consumer protection legislation designed to balance rights between landlords and tenants, and does not require the LTB to adjudicate or apportion liability between multiple landlords.

The tenant brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The landlord sought to quash the appeal as an abuse of process, arguing it lacked merit and was brought to delay eviction.

The court noted the tenant had brought his rent into good standing and was making efforts to participate.

Finding the appeal was not completely devoid of merit and not an abuse of process given the lack of accumulating arrears, the court granted the extension of time on the condition that the tenant continue to pay rent on time.

The court held a case management conference to address five appeals brought by a tenant against eviction orders for five different rental units.

The tenant had a history of seeking adjournments due to alleged illness while subletting the units for profit and accumulating substantial rent arrears.

The court ordered that two appeals would be dismissed as abandoned if not perfected, scheduled motions to quash the remaining three appeals, and ordered the tenant to pay all arrears in full as a condition of maintaining the stays of eviction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the test for bad faith under s. 57(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) and the potential liability of purchasers in "own use" evictions.

The Landlord and Tenant Board (Board) and Divisional Court had erred by unduly narrowing the bad faith assessment to the landlord's knowledge at the time of notice and by failing to consider the purchaser's good faith.

The Court held that the Board must consider all relevant evidence, including events after the notice, and assess the good faith of both the landlord and the purchaser.

The appeal was granted, and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that required him to pay $50,000 in rent arrears to void an eviction order, arguing this exceeded the Board's $35,000 monetary jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that while the Board cannot issue a standalone order for payment exceeding $35,000, this limit does not apply to the conditions a tenant must satisfy to void a termination order under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court held that restricting 'pay to stay' conditions to the monetary limit would result in an absurdity, allowing tenants to obtain rent abatements by accumulating massive arrears.