Joe Hoffer

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing regarding the Township of Selwyn's development charges by-laws.

The underlying appeal by Camping in Ontario challenges whether the installation of Park Model Trailers constitutes 'development' under the Development Charges Act and whether the by-laws properly define and assess charges for such trailers.

The hearing is scheduled for four days commencing March 3, 2026.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering them to repay unlawful rent increases to the tenants.

The landlords argued that section 135.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which deems certain rent increases not void if paid for 12 consecutive months, prevented the Board from ordering repayment.

The Divisional Court found that while the Board erred in characterizing the legislative purpose of section 135.1, it did not err in interpreting 'finally determined' or in applying the law to the facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and the landlords were required to repay the illegal rent.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to a waterfront lot leased to the respondent tenant.

The lot contained a cottage subject to a 99-year lease.

The landlord argued the property was exempt under section 5(a) of the Act as seasonal or temporary accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an annual rental of premises used seasonally does not fall within the section 5(a) exemption, which is intended for temporary accommodations for the travelling or vacationing public.

The tenants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to order a de novo hearing of their eviction applications.

The original LTB member had already conducted a consolidated hearing and determined that the landlord breached s. 83(3)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act by treating tenant union members differently during rent arrears negotiations.

The only remaining issue was identifying which specific tenants had made repayment proposals.

Before making this final factual determination, the member resigned.

The LTB subsequently ordered a de novo hearing without consulting the parties.

The Divisional Court held that ordering a de novo hearing in these circumstances, where the substantive legal issues had already been comprehensively decided, was a denial of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was granted, the original decision was reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the LTB solely to determine which tenants made repayment proposals.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a 15% rent reduction for tenants after the landlord unilaterally removed on-site storage lockers to build new rental units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the unreasonableness of the landlord's actions and the quantum of the rent reduction were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not subject to statutory appeal.

The Court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by crafting a global remedy for all affected tenants without requiring each individual tenant to testify.

The appellant brought a motion seeking production of inspection orders issued to 102 other properties by the respondent.

The appellant argued these documents were relevant to show that the respondent's inspectors treated a fire alarm acoustics guideline as mandatory.

The tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of inspection orders that specifically dealt with acoustic issues related to fire alarm systems, subject to redactions for privacy.

The Office of the Fire Marshal brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding a fire safety inspection order.

The appellant challenged the inspector's jurisdiction to enforce technical guidelines issued by the Fire Marshal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, adding the Fire Marshal as a party limited to the issue of its jurisdiction to make the guideline and its effect on fire inspections, without the right to argue the merits of the underlying appeal or augment the record.

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia brought a motion seeking to set aside or vary a previous decision, declare an equitable right to indemnity, and obtain an interim mandatory order against Bluewater Health regarding the maintenance of the Mitton site.

The core issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the motion under Rule 59.06, given that the City was attempting to introduce new causes of action (tort claims) that were not pleaded in the original application, which was premised on a trust relationship.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation and that re-opening a case for new arguments would foster litigation in stages, thus dismissing the motion.

The City of Sarnia applied for a declaration that it held legal title to the "Mitton site" properties in trust for Bluewater Health, either as a bare trust or a constructive trust, and sought an equitable right to indemnity for ongoing maintenance costs.

The court dismissed the application, finding no certainty of intention to establish a bare trust from the relevant statutes (1920 Act and 1989 Act) or the parties' conduct.

Furthermore, the court found no basis for a constructive trust, as the City was seeking to impose a burden (decommissioning costs) rather than remedy an unjust enrichment or condemn a wrongful act by Bluewater.

The court emphasized that constructive trusts are typically used to provide a proprietary remedy for a party's loss or to prevent wrongful gain, not to transfer liabilities.

The applicant, a corporate landlord, sought judicial review to quash the City of Waterloo's Residential Rental Housing Licensing By-law.

The applicant argued the licensing fees constituted an ultra vires indirect tax and that the by-law's application to townhouses but not apartment buildings constructively discriminated against families contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the fees were validly enacted to fund the licensing program and did not constitute a tax.

The Court also held the by-law did not discriminate on the basis of family status, as it targeted specific types of dwellings rather than any protected group.

The landlord brought an unsuccessful motion to quash the tenants' appeal from an eviction order.

The tenants sought costs of the motion.

The court found that the landlord acted unreasonably by pursuing the motion when it knew the eviction order was based on the false premise that the tenants' complaints to government officials were unfounded.

The court awarded costs to the tenants in the amount of $17,337.71, reflecting the actual hourly rates charged by their counsel, which were lower than the maximum partial indemnity rates.

The landlord moved to quash the tenants' appeal of an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the Board Member demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and made palpable errors of fact by ignoring a Fire Marshall's email confirming fire code deficiencies.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' appeal raised legitimate questions of law regarding both bias and palpable errors of fact.

The landlord's motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and evicting her for non-payment of rent.

She argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by denying her request for a third adjournment to summons a witness from Social Services, and that she did not owe the rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice as the tenant had previously been granted two adjournments and failed to comply with interim orders to produce evidence.

The Board's finding on the rent arrears was reasonable based on the landlord's uncontradicted ledger evidence.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and evicting them for committing an illegal act (breach of zoning by-law).

The Divisional Court found the Board erred by reversing the onus of proof regarding the zoning issue when there was no evidence the cabin was in the prohibited zone.

Furthermore, the Board erred in law by failing to dismiss the eviction application under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found the eviction application was brought because the tenants had successfully enforced their legal rights to resist an illegal rent increase, which mandates refusal of the eviction regardless of the landlord's good or bad faith.

The appeal was allowed and the eviction application dismissed.

A municipality sought an injunction preventing a church from operating a homeless men’s shelter in the basement of its church building in contravention of a zoning by-law enacted under the Planning Act.

The respondent argued the shelter constituted a church-sponsored activity or accessory use and alternatively claimed enforcement infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

The court held the shelter constituted an “emergency shelter” use not permitted within the zoning designation and not an accessory church use.

Enforcement of the zoning by-law did not substantially interfere with religious freedom because the restriction concerned the location of the shelter rather than the ability to operate one.

A declaration and permanent injunction were granted prohibiting continued operation of the shelter at the property.

The court issued an endorsement as to costs following an appeal.

Having reviewed the written submissions from both parties, the court fixed the costs payable to the successful respondent at $4,000.