John W. Dickie

The appellant tenant appealed a consent eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal and lift the stay of the eviction order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the appellant failed to seek the required leave to appeal a consent order under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act and failed to file the appeal within the 30-day statutory period.

The stay of the eviction order was lifted.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of another tenant.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness regarding the service of N5 notices and disputed the LTB's factual findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the appellant had the notices well before the hearing, and holding that disagreements with factual findings do not constitute errors of law.

The Court also noted that the appeal was not moot despite the complainant tenant having passed away after the hearing.

The tenant moved for a stay pending review of an order quashing her appeal and lifting the stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had failed to pay rent for approximately 30 months.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay and found no merit to the proposed review, as the tenant failed to raise a question of law.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the landlord.

The motion for a stay was 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.

The moving parties appealed their property assessments to the Ontario Municipal Board, which dismissed the appeals.

A single judge of the Divisional Court denied their motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties then brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside the denial of leave.

The Divisional Court held that a decision granting or denying leave to appeal made by a single judge can only be set aside if the judge declined jurisdiction.

As the motions judge applied the correct test and did not decline jurisdiction, the motion was dismissed.