Heeney R.S.J.

The tenant, who lived in rent-geared-to-income premises, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the rent increases were unlawful.

The Board ruled it lacked jurisdiction to determine the lawful rent under s. 203(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that because the tenant's rent was not payable under the Housing Services Act, s. 203(a) did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of the rent charged.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed an order reducing and ultimately terminating her spousal support.

The respondent, a former police officer, had voluntarily retired at age 51 and successfully argued at first instance that this constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding the parties had agreed to an early retirement date during their initial settlement.

The Court held that voluntary early retirement by a payor who retains the capacity to earn income does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The Court also found errors in the motion judge's application of the rule against double-dipping and the imposition of a termination date on support for a disabled spouse.

The original spousal support order was reinstated.