Joseph Kary

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.