3 total
Residential Tenancies Act applies to land lease sites used for recreational cottages and secondary homes.
The appellants leased land from the respondent's predecessor and built cottages used as year-round secondary homes.
The respondent sought to significantly increase rent and replace the leases with licences.
The Landlord and Tenant Board and the Divisional Court held that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply because the premises were used for recreational purposes.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the cottages were 'living accommodation' used as 'rented residential premises' and that the Act applies regardless of whether the premises are used for recreational purposes or as a secondary residence.
Crown's cross-appeal for trial costs dismissed due to its failure to communicate change in position.
In an addendum to its earlier reasons dismissing the appellant's appeal and allowing the respondent Conservation Authority's cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed the respondent Crown's cross-appeal regarding trial costs.
The trial judge had declined to award the successful Crown its costs because it failed to communicate its change in position regarding a land exchange, which could have avoided the appellant's damages.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and dismissed the Crown's cross-appeal on costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed; negligent misrepresentation claim fails due to lack of detrimental reliance.
The appellant sued the Crown and the Conservation Authority for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation arising from an aborted land exchange.
The trial judge dismissed the contract claim but found the Conservation Authority liable for negligent misrepresentation, awarding reduced damages due to a failure to mitigate.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on damages and allowed the Conservation Authority's cross-appeal, finding that the appellant had not detrimentally relied on the misrepresentation and that the failure of a related sale transaction was not caused by the misrepresentation.
