Joseph Kary

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision terminating his membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative and ordering a writ of possession for arrears and persistent late payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness in the Board proceeding in his absence, as his failure to attend was deliberate.

The court also found no error in the motions judge ordering payment of a minimum admitted amount of arrears without determining the exact higher amount owed, and held it was not unfair to issue the writ of possession given the appellant's failure to pay any amount.

The appellants, a family with seven children living in subsidized co-operative housing, appealed an order terminating their membership and issuing a writ of possession due to late housing charge payments.

The application judge had declined to exercise his discretion to grant relief from eviction under s. 171.21 of the Co-operative Corporations Act, finding no 'change in circumstances' since the co-operative board's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in principle by requiring a change in circumstances rather than considering all circumstances, including the devastating impact of eviction on the children.

The court granted relief from eviction subject to strict conditions for future payments.

The appellant tenant sought a stay of an eviction order pending an appeal.

A previous stay had been lifted by another judge due to the tenant's failure to pay rent on time, resulting in over $30,000 in arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for a stay, finding no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as there had been no material change in circumstances since the previous order.

In the alternative, the court held that a stay was not warranted on the merits, as the tenant failed to meet the test for a stay and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative terminated and granting a writ of possession.

The co-operative had withdrawn her rent-geared-to-income subsidy because she failed to disclose her receipt of Ontario Works benefits since 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly concluded the co-operative's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The landlord brought a motion to extend the time for enforcement of an eviction order previously upheld by the Divisional Court.

The tenant had sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, which the court characterized as frivolous and vexatious efforts to avoid enforcement.

The court rejected the tenant's allegations of bad faith against the landlord and granted the motion, ordering the tenancy terminated forthwith and a writ of possession to issue, enforceable on or after May 1, 2008.

The appellant housing co-operative appealed a judgment that declared the respondent's membership and occupancy rights terminated but stayed the enforcement of the eviction and arrears on certain conditions.

The respondent, who is disabled, had fallen into arrears after his income decreased and the co-operative froze subsidies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing judge erred in principle by effectively granting an indefinite and retroactive subsidy to the respondent, which was an unwarranted interference with the co-operative's democratic decision-making process and imposed an unfair financial burden on the other members.

The appellants, members of a housing co-operative, appealed a judgment terminating their occupancy rights and ordering payment of post-bankruptcy arrears.

They argued the judgment violated the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act by identifying pre-bankruptcy arrears, and that they were denied procedural fairness when the application judge refused an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judgment did not violate the BIA as it explicitly stayed collection of pre-bankruptcy arrears, and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the adjournment given the mounting arrears and prejudice to the co-operative.

The appellant appealed an order terminating her spousal support.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's analysis of the factors under section 15 of the Divorce Act, noting the short duration of the marriage, the parties' respective assets, and the absence of children.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The court declined to award costs to the successful respondent co-operative, citing the appellant's difficult financial circumstances and the respondent's failure to cooperate with the City to enable the appellant to obtain a housing subsidy.

The court also rejected the respondent's request for costs against the appellant's solicitor personally.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a judgment evicting her from her co-operative housing unit and ordering her to pay rent arrears.

She argued the trial judge failed to exercise his discretion under s. 171 of the Co-operative Corporations Act to refuse the eviction, alleging she relinquished her rent subsidy due to misrepresentations by the co-operative's board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's fact-finding and no error in principle in his exercise of discretion to grant the eviction.

The appellant wife appealed an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home and a distribution of $75,000 of the proceeds to each party.

The wife argued the distribution order impaired her claim for an unequal division of the proceeds.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred by ordering a specific distribution without knowing the sale price, rather than holding back funds to cover the wife's claim.

The court varied the order to distribute $15,000 to the husband and $75,000 to the wife, with the balance held in trust pending trial.

The appellant tenant appealed orders of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal concerning a residential property.

Prior to the appeal, the property was sold to a third party and the tenant relocated to a different property by agreement with the landlord.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal was moot because the tenant no longer inhabited the subject premises.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no order as to costs.

The tenant appealed an eviction order, arguing the adjudicator erred in finding the landlord required possession of the premises in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue of good faith is a question of fact, and appeals to the Divisional Court under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 are restricted to questions of law.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order and the subsequent refusal of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to re-open a review hearing.

The tenant had failed to attend the initial review hearing because he was hospitalized for psychiatric care.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's refusal to consider the tenant's medical inability to attend constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Court extended the time to appeal the original order, set aside the order denying the review request, and ordered a rehearing.