Katia Snukal

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order that found them liable for rental arrears based on a monthly rent of $5,500.

The appellants had sold their home to the respondents in a complex transaction intended to lower their mortgage payments, with an alleged agreement to rent the property back for $2,000 per month.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction because the essential character of the dispute involved a suspicious transfer of ownership and a failure to agree on essential lease terms.

The Court held that the Board erred in law by relying on an unsigned draft lease to establish the legal rent and failing to ascertain the real substance of the transaction under section 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The matter was directed to be resolved in the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant tenant appealed three eviction orders and a review order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent and committing illegal acts.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding he committed illegal acts because he was acquitted of the related criminal charges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applies a different standard of proof and is permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict for illegal acts without a criminal conviction.

The court found no errors of law in the Board's assessment of the evidence, its refusal to grant relief from eviction, or its procedural fairness.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering them to repay unlawful rent increases to the tenants.

The landlords argued that section 135.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which deems certain rent increases not void if paid for 12 consecutive months, prevented the Board from ordering repayment.

The Divisional Court found that while the Board erred in characterizing the legislative purpose of section 135.1, it did not err in interpreting 'finally determined' or in applying the law to the facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and the landlords were required to repay the illegal rent.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that resulted in her eviction for rent arrears.

The eviction was executed by the Sheriff before a stay was in place, and the landlord subsequently re-rented the unit to a new tenant.

The Divisional Court held that it could not restore the tenant to the unit or order the landlord to provide a different unit.

The court also dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding multiplicity of proceedings, issue estoppel, loss of jurisdiction, and procedural fairness, finding that the LTB's distinct processes for persistent late payment and non-payment of rent were appropriate and fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a former teacher, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision staying her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously pursued grievances through her union, which involved extensive arbitration hearings where unfavourable medical evidence was presented, before the union withdrew the grievances.

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO Vice-Chair reasonably concluded the applicant was engaged in forum shopping and that allowing the HRTO application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) dismissing her discrimination application against her professional regulatory college.

The HRTO had dismissed the application because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period, challenged adjudicative functions protected by immunity, and relied on inadmissible investigation documents.

The Divisional Court found the HRTO's decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding the college's constitutional status, minor corrections made to the HRTO decision, and the same adjudicator hearing the reconsideration request.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Durham Regional Police Services Board and Christopher Delaney appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's (HRTO) decisions unreasonable.

The HRTO had ruled that a settlement agreement for a second human rights application also settled a prior, undecided first application by Joseph Briggs, and subsequently cancelled a favourable decision for Briggs on the first application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court reversed the HRTO, finding its interpretation of the settlement unreasonable and deciding the matter itself rather than remitting it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO's decision was unreasonable due to its narrow interpretation of the factual matrix and exclusion of relevant evidence (Form 25).

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the Divisional Court's discretion to decide the matter rather than remitting it, citing the inordinate delay and the binary nature of the issue.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the settlement did not cover the first application.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

The moving party, a former superintendent, argued his employment was unlawfully terminated due to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not raise an error of law, and that further delay would cause ongoing prejudice to the landlord given the accumulating rental arrears.

The appellant tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that one of the co-tenants was denied due process because her name was omitted from the ex parte eviction application and subsequent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the omission was a clerical error, the co-tenant had notice of the proceedings, and she suffered no prejudice.

The court ordered the eviction order amended to add the co-tenant's name nunc pro tunc.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision that partially dismissed his claims of discrimination in the hiring process for a law firm associate position.

The HRTO had found age discrimination, racial discrimination, and reprisal by the respondents, but dismissed other allegations.

On judicial review, the applicant argued the HRTO Vice-Chair breached procedural fairness, misapprehended evidence, and committed errors of law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's process was fair, free of bias, and its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The self-represented applicant commenced two applications for judicial review of decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal relating to disability support payments.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the applications as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the applications contained only vague and bald allegations, making it impossible to discern a legal basis.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to pursue his statutory right of appeal and provided no reasonable explanation for his delay in commencing the proceedings.

The applications were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a housing co-operative.

He argued procedural unfairness regarding the scheduling of an expedited remote hearing, the use of security video evidence, and findings on conduct not in the eviction notices, as well as a failure to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the remote hearing process or the admission of evidence, and concluding that the adjudicator had appropriately considered and accommodated his disability by delaying the eviction.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board declining to void an eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The Board had found that the tenant failed to pay all arrears, costs, and enforcement fees under the Administration of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by including enforcement fees in its determination of whether the tenant met the requirements of s. 74(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The applicant commenced two applications for judicial review of decisions made by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal requested that the applications be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the applicant failed to exhaust his statutory appeal rights.

The Divisional Court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the applicant under Rule 2.1.01, giving him an opportunity to explain why the applications should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the proceedings in the interim.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the tenants' application for rent abatement.

The landlord had previously commenced a Superior Court application for unpaid occupancy fees, and the tenants subsequently applied to the Board for rent abatement due to alleged lack of heat.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by concluding it could not decline jurisdiction and by failing to consider whether the tenants' application was an abuse of process.

The Court found that allowing the Board application to proceed would lead to duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, as the tenants were raising the exact same issues as a set-off defense in the Superior Court action.

The appeal was allowed and the tenants' Board application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying an above-guideline rent increase for the cost of installing a fall arrest roof anchor system.

The Landlord argued it was denied procedural fairness when the LTB refused an adjournment to allow it to gather evidence proving the installation was legally necessary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Landlord bore the onus of proving the expenditure was necessary to comply with building standards and should have attended the hearing prepared with such evidence.

The Court also rejected the argument that the LTB improperly relied on a confidential prehearing note.

The applicant sought judicial review of HRTO decisions dismissing his human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO found that the substance of his allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration, even though the union declined to advance Code-based arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's application of s. 45.1 was reasonable, as the arbitrator's factual findings precluded any finding of Code violations.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness denial and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the respondents' tenancies of two cottages for his children's use.

The respondents claimed they owned the cottages and only leased the land.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to decide the ownership issue, found that the respondents owned the cottages, and dismissed the eviction applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's appeal, holding that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine ownership for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act, did not breach procedural fairness, and correctly concluded that the Act superseded the common law of fixtures.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against PayPal.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin, place of residence, and citizenship after PayPal refused to issue him a cheque in US dollars upon closing his Canadian account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the essence of the complaint was based on residence, which is not an enumerated ground under the Human Rights Code.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.

A case management conference was held to address an issue regarding whether the appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board had been settled.

The court directed the parties to exchange materials on the settlement issue and place them before the panel scheduled to hear the appeal.