3 total
Injunction Motion dismissed
The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and two residential tenants moved for an urgent stay of an order by Chief Justice Morawetz, which had varied a previous order to end a moratorium on residential evictions in Ontario.
The applicants sought to reinstate the moratorium, arguing that lifting it was premature due to ongoing COVID-19 risks, especially for vulnerable tenants.
The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, as the Chief Justice's original order was an exercise of inherent jurisdiction to control court processes, not a policy decision on the pandemic.
The court emphasized that the issues raised by tenants were policy matters for the government, not legal issues for the court.
Eviction order enforced during COVID-19 moratorium due to urgent health and safety risks.
The applicant sought to enforce an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board against the respondent, despite a general suspension of residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Chief Justice.
The Board had previously found urgent health and safety concerns due to the tenant's repeated marijuana smoking in a house with oxygen tanks, the landlord's compromised immune system, and threats made by the tenant.
The court, balancing the public health risk of eviction against the immediate health and safety risks posed by the tenant, granted leave to enforce the eviction order, effective June 17, 2020, with a provision for the tenant to make further submissions regarding notice.
Application for judicial review of LTB consent order dismissed due to inadequate record and equitable considerations.
The tenants brought an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order.
The tenants had previously agreed to vacate the premises by a specified date in exchange for the landlords waiving $3,500 in rent arrears.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the record inadequate to understand the tribunal proceedings and noting that judicial review is a discretionary, equitable remedy.
The court held it would be inequitable to grant relief because the consent order substantially reflected the tenants' agreement.