M. McArthur

The appellant landlord appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that dismissed her applications and found she had harassed the respondent tenant and breached the Residential Tenancies Act.

The LTB had ordered the landlord to pay the tenant compensation, cease harassing behaviour, and pay a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding no errors of law, no procedural unfairness, and that the LTB's factual findings regarding the landlord's retaliatory conduct were well supported by the record.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring $4,000,000 from the proceeds of the sale of their property to be paid into court as security for the respondents' damages claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge erred in law by applying the general test for an interlocutory injunction rather than the stringent test for a Mareva injunction.

The court held that there was no evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation, no undertaking as to damages was provided, and the alternative argument under Rule 45.02 failed because the respondents sought damages rather than an interest in a specific fund.

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The appellant estate trustee appealed a decision directing payment to the respondent for expenses paid on behalf of the deceased's estate.

The appellant argued the claim was barred by s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 38(3) applies to wrongs committed by the deceased, not ordinary estate debts.

The Court also held that the limitation period for reimbursement did not begin to run until the respondent made a claim to the appointed trustee and the trustee refused to pay.