Jane L. Ferguson

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board and sought an adjournment before the Divisional Court to obtain counsel to negotiate a payment plan for $15,000 in rental arrears.

The court found that the appellant had a history of 'gaming the system' by requesting adjournments, failing to attend hearings, and accruing uncollectable arrears.

The court denied the adjournment, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of the Board's eviction order, and directed the sheriff to enforce the order.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy for causing damage to the rental unit and transferring occupancy to an unauthorized occupant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's arguments regarding the Board's factual findings and exercise of discretion did not raise any questions of law.

The Court also rejected the appellant's arguments that the Board failed to accommodate her disabilities, noting she was able to participate fully in the hearing.

The eviction order was stayed until June 1, 2015, to allow the appellant to find replacement accommodation.

The self-represented appellant requested an adjournment of her appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board to recast her Notice of Appeal and bring a motion for fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting the Notice of Appeal was filed over two years prior and the time for perfection had already been extended once.

The court held that granting the adjournment would be contrary to the fair and orderly administration of justice.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory order from a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge, who had dismissed their motion to strike the respondent's claim for lack of jurisdiction and expiry of a limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that judicial review of interlocutory Small Claims Court decisions is only available in narrow circumstances, such as when the court acts without jurisdiction.

The court found that the Deputy Judge's provisional determination of jurisdiction based on allegations of theft did not warrant judicial review, as the Small Claims Court generally has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of her appeal and a motion to stay her eviction and permit re-entry.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court dismissed the tenant's motion to set aside the dismissal, noting that the eviction was lawful and the basement apartment she occupied was illegal under city bylaws.

The landlord had already removed the kitchen to comply with city requirements, making re-occupation impossible.

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed as moot, and the landlord's motion to quash was withdrawn.

Costs were awarded to the landlord.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing a denial of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by receiving documentary evidence after the formal hearing without affording the tenant an opportunity to respond, and by failing to address this flaw on reconsideration.

The appeal was allowed, and a new hearing was directed before the Board, with instructions to consider new evidence regarding municipal restrictions.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant argued the Board erred in refusing an adjournment and lacked jurisdiction to impose a condition requiring completion of an alcohol withdrawal program.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal to adjourn given the continuing dangerous condition and the tenant's consent order to vacate.

The Court also held the condition issue was moot and, regardless, permitted under s. 204 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants appealed an eviction order issued by the Tribunal based on noise complaints.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was based entirely on findings of fact regarding the tenants' interference with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants.

As appeals under the Tenant Protection Act are confined to questions of law, the court quashed the appeal, reinstated the eviction order, and set aside the automatic stay.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed a motion to set aside an eviction order.

The Tribunal had found that the N11 agreement to terminate the tenancy was made voluntarily and without fraud, duress, or misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and noting that the Tribunal had properly considered the substance of the transaction and all surrounding circumstances.