Eli Theodore Fellman

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 appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing an application for harassment.

The Board member found the appellants were not tenants, and alternatively, that they were not harassed.

On appeal, the appellant argued the member erred in finding they were not tenants, but raised no argument regarding the harassment finding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the member erred on the tenancy issue, there was no error of law in the dismissal of the application because the harassment finding was unchallenged.

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.