Katherine Haist

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that evicted the appellant wife from her rental unit.

The husband, the sole named tenant, vacated the unit following a domestic violence incident and later submitted a notice of termination.

The Board initially set aside an ex parte eviction order, finding the wife was a tenant, but a subsequent review decision overturned this and ordered eviction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in conducting a review without a serious error in the initial decision.

Furthermore, the court held that under s. 3(2) of O. Reg. 516/06, the wife automatically became a tenant when her husband vacated the unit, and his subsequent notice could not terminate her tenancy.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to the tenants' rooming house tenancies and awarding damages for an illegal lockout.

The landlords argued the LTB erred by allowing them to be represented by an unlicensed friend, by permitting tenants to hear each other's evidence, and by classifying one of the appellants as a landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were responsible for their choice of representative, that parties have a right to hear evidence, and that the classification of a landlord is an unappealable question of mixed fact and law.