Justice I.F. Leach

The appellant estate trustee appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision dismissing an application to terminate a tenancy for the purpose of demolishing the rental unit under s. 50(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The LTB found the landlord lacked a genuine, crystallized intention to demolish the unit, as the landlord remained willing to sell the property with the house intact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB reasonably interpreted s. 50(1)(a) as containing an implied good faith requirement for a genuine intention to demolish, and that the LTB's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought a motion to exclude specified material from the record of proceedings filed by the respondents in her underlying application for judicial review.

The judicial review application challenged the Integrity Commissioner's finding that the applicant breached the municipality's code of conduct and the municipal council's subsequent decision to suspend her pay for 90 days.

The applicant argued the Integrity Commissioner did not exercise a statutory power of decision and that the material was irrelevant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Integrity Commissioner did exercise a statutory power of decision and that the targeted material was relevant to the procedural fairness and bias issues raised by the applicant herself.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order terminating their 24-year tenancy and evicting them so the landlord husband could occupy the unit following a marriage breakdown.

The respondent landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit because it raised questions of fact and mixed fact and law, rather than questions of law alone as required by s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court quashed the appeal but exercised its discretion to delay the eviction date to allow the tenants time to find new accommodations.

The self-represented applicant tenant brought an urgent, ex parte motion in writing for an interim stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding his rent payment method.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the motion, finding that the applicant failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding motions in writing and bypassed the mandatory triage and scheduling provisions of the Divisional Court's Notice to the Profession.

The court ordered the applicant to comply with the required procedures before the motion could be heard.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a paving contract dispute.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred by not awarding prejudgment interest on its counterclaim for defective work dating back to the respondent's original invoice date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge's quantification of damages based on the cost of remedial work at a later date inherently incorporated the time value of money, and therefore denying earlier prejudgment interest was a proper exercise of discretion to avoid over-compensation.

Following the dismissal of the Township's motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a zoning by-law amendment, the successful responding party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no reprehensible conduct by the Township to justify an elevated scale and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

After considering the factors under Rule 57.01, including the principle of indemnity, complexity, and the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $8,000 inclusive.