Eli Theodore Fellman

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the respondent tenant a rent abatement and damages for illegal entry, lockout, and harassment.

The appellant argued the Board erred in finding he was a landlord rather than a roommate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's arguments raised questions of fact, not law, which cannot be appealed under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also declined to award costs to the successful self-represented respondent for lost wages.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay the respondent tenant $1,130.00.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by proceeding with the hearing in her absence after she sent a letter advising of a doctor's appointment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to follow the Board's procedures for requesting an adjournment and the Board properly exercised its discretion to proceed under the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her family following an altercation with the building superintendent over a clogged sink.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board made several errors of law.

Specifically, the Board failed to consider whether the tenant 'permitted' the illegal act (spitting) under s. 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, improperly speculated about future risk under s. 66(1), and failed to consider all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction under s. 83.

The eviction order was set aside and the landlord's applications were dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent and ordering him to pay $25,000 in arrears.

The tenant argued he owed no rent because the landlord had abandoned the property for six years, failed to maintain it, and that the claim was barred by laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly limited the tenant's repair claims to a one-year period under the Residential Tenancies Act and correctly held that the equitable doctrine of laches does not apply to statutory claims for rent arrears, which have no limitation period.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrest of a videographer during the G20 summit.

The applicant argued the Commission erred in its standard of review and that the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the reasons were adequate for appellate review and that the finding of misconduct was reasonable given the lack of good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

The appellant rented a unit and subsequently rented a bedroom in that unit to the respondent.

The appellant locked the respondent out of the unit without an eviction order.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the respondent was a subtenant and awarded damages for unlawful eviction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Board erred in its application of the subtenancy provisions, as the appellant had not vacated the unit for a specified term.

However, the Court upheld the Board's remedial order, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act still applied because the appellant met the broad statutory definition of a landlord and the respondent met the definition of a tenant.

The appellant, a former tenant, appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her application to reopen a mediated settlement with her former landlord.

She argued the Board Member was biased, denied her an adjournment, and improperly excluded evidence of coercion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no procedural unfairness in denying the adjournment, and that the Board reasonably excluded evidence of coercion that did not relate to the mediation itself.

The appellant, a former tenant, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her application to reopen a mediated settlement with her former landlord.

She argued the Board Member was biased and that she was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused an adjournment and excluded evidence of coercion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no error in denying the adjournment, and that the Board reasonably excluded evidence of coercion that did not relate to the mediation itself.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay the respondent tenant $12,000 for illegally collected rent.

The tenant had signed a new lease with the appellant, who had purchased the property, doubling the rent without a Notice of Rent Increase.

The Board found the sole purpose of the new lease was to increase the rent, making the increase void ab initio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's conclusions were based on findings of fact that were not subject to appeal and that the Board applied the correct legal principles.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the N5 notice of termination was void due to technical defects, specifically a missing bullet point and the inclusion of both repair and replacement costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the notice was compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act because a reasonable person would understand their options to void the notice.

The landlord appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to various rental units, despite the parties having signed commercial lease agreements.

The LTB found that the true nature of the tenancies was residential, based on representations by the landlord's superintendents and the actual use of the units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a premise is a rental unit and to ascertain the real substance of the transaction under section 202 of the Act, and that these were findings of fact not reviewable on appeal.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to a unit leased under a commercial lease agreement.

The tenant used the unit primarily as a living space and incidentally for creating artwork.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably applied section 202 of the Act to ascertain the true nature of the tenancy, and that the Board's factual findings regarding the predominant use of the unit were not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction after police found a loaded firearm and drugs in her unit, which were possessed by her son.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by relying on hearsay evidence and misapplying the eviction and relief provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reliance on hearsay was permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the tenant's arguments raised unreviewable questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The appellant appealed an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because he had commenced a Superior Court action claiming a 50% ownership interest in the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine if the appellant was a tenant and to order eviction, as he was not a registered co-owner and no final court determination of co-ownership existed.

The Court also upheld the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, finding no denial of procedural fairness where the appellant voluntarily chose not to attend the hearing.

The appellant appealed a final order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy and evicting him so the landlord could demolish the building.

The appellant argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by determining he was not a co-owner of the property, an issue he had raised in a concurrent Superior Court action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine if the appellant was a 'tenant' under the Residential Tenancies Act, which required assessing if he occupied the unit as a co-owner.

The Court held the Board's conclusion was reasonable and would not cause a multiplicity of proceedings, as the Board only determined legal ownership for tenancy purposes, leaving the Superior Court to adjudicate the appellant's claim for an equitable interest.

The appellant tenants appealed a decision denying them a rent abatement after their apartment building's elevator was out of service for 96 days due to a latent defect.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had acted diligently and reasonably in maintaining the elevator and replacing it, and thus did not breach its duty to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's contextual interpretation of s. 20(1), which considered the reasonableness of the landlord's actions, was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.