Joseph Osuji

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for failing to meet payment terms in a prior consent order.

The tenant argued the LTB breached procedural fairness by proceeding without notice and that she had since paid her arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 78(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act expressly permits hearings without notice in these circumstances.

The court also held that an appeal is not a de novo hearing and subsequent payments do not cure defaults that existed at the time of the LTB hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Review Body denying her late request to review the loss of her rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidy.

The applicant lost her eligibility in 2019 for failing to provide required income and asset information, but did not request a review until over two years later.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Review Body met its duty of procedural fairness, which was at the lower end of the spectrum, and that its decision to deny the late request was reasonable given the applicant's failure to provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The applicant wife brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief, obtain an order for an Islamic religious divorce, and seek security for costs.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that a divorce would prejudice his annulment claim and property division.

The court found no legal basis for the annulment claim, as the evidence did not support non-consummation or fraud for immigration purposes as grounds for annulment.

The court granted the divorce severance and ordered the respondent to cooperate in obtaining the Islamic religious divorce, noting these orders would not prejudice the respondent's property claims.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent lacked assets to pay costs, despite the respondent's unreasonable conduct and an unpaid prior costs order.

The applicant mother sought child and spousal support retroactive to the parties' separation on October 1, 2015.

The respondent father failed to comply with disclosure obligations and made conflicting statements regarding his income.

The court found that the father's income should be imputed at $100,000 annually based on his trucking work history and earning capacity.

The court awarded retroactive child support of $1,920 monthly commencing December 1, 2017, and $1,845 monthly from December 1, 2016 to November 1, 2017.

The court also awarded retroactive spousal support of $1,000 monthly commencing December 1, 2016, on compensatory and needs-based grounds.

Arrears were to be paid at $250 monthly commencing July 1, 2018.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from soliciting customers, alleging breach of a non-solicitation clause in a confidentiality agreement.

The respondents denied signing the agreement.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the agreement's existence but no irreparable harm, as losses were quantifiable in damages.

The motion for injunction was dismissed, and the application was converted to an action for damages.

No costs were awarded.

A family law application concerning custody, access, and child support for a five-year-old child whose mother is subject to a deportation order to Jamaica.

The applicant father initially sought sole custody and a non-removal order but modified his position during trial.

The respondent mother sought sole custody with reasonable access for the father.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, reasonable and generous access to the father whether in Canada or Jamaica, child support of $400 per month, and dispensed with the father's consent for travel documentation and international travel with the child.

The court terminated the temporary non-removal order, finding no genuine dispute between the parties on this issue.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support and an interest in a property registered in the respondent's name.

The trial judge found the parties separated before the property was acquired, it was never a matrimonial home, and rejected the appellant's claim of a $54,000 cash contribution.

The trial judge also found insufficient evidence to establish an entitlement to spousal support.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.