Katie Douglas

The moving party, a tenant in a rent-geared-to-income unit, sought an extension of time to bring applications for judicial review of a housing provider's decision revoking his subsidy and a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his application as abandoned.

The housing provider had revoked the subsidy due to the tenant's failure to provide required income verification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that while the delay was short and caused no prejudice, the proposed applications for judicial review lacked any merit.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy due to substantial rental arrears.

While the tenant met the criteria for intention to appeal and explanation for delay, the court found the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The tenant's arguments regarding the Board's failure to consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic under s. 83(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and alleged bias did not raise plausible errors of law.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The moving party landlord brought a motion without notice to renew a writ of possession for a residential unit.

The responding party tenant had been evicted by the Landlord and Tenant Board for failing to pay rent and owed over $44,000 in arrears.

The court found that notice to the tenant was not required for a motion to extend the writ, and given the significant arrears and high demand for subsidized housing, granted the motion to renew the writ for one year.

The landlord brought a motion for leave to issue a writ of possession to enforce a 2021 Divisional Court order evicting the tenant for rent arrears.

Enforcement had been delayed due to a COVID-19 eviction moratorium, and the enforcement office refused to execute the order, treating it as an expired writ of possession under Rule 60.10(3).

The Divisional Court held that the 2021 order was not a writ of possession and remained valid without a time limit.

Given the tenant's significant rent arrears and the equities of the case, the court granted leave to issue a writ of possession.

The moving party sought leave to extend the time to bring a motion to vary a previous order that had dismissed her request to extend the time to appeal Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.

She also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding ongoing noise and harassment complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time without justification.

The court also held that the fresh evidence was irrelevant to the previous decisions and that the underlying appeal lacked merit as it challenged factual findings rather than errors of law.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an order terminating her tenancy with the respondent landlord.

The termination order was issued after the tenant failed to pay $100 per month towards rent arrears as previously ordered by the Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's disputes regarding the amount of arrears and maintenance issues were not questions of law, and that she could not raise the issue of lack of notice for the first time on appeal.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding severe noise problems in her apartment.

The Board had dismissed her claims for failing to prove them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to extend time, finding that the proposed appeal lacked merit because it challenged factual findings, which are not subject to appellate review.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

The appellants appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy for failing to comply with a mediated settlement regarding rent arrears.

The appellants argued that one tenant was not properly served and that they received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that service on the household was proper and that the appellants failed to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice resulting from their representation.

The eviction order was stayed until January 31, 2020, conditional on the payment of ongoing rent.

The tenants appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The landlord, Toronto Community Housing Corp., agreed that the appeal should be allowed because neither the landlord nor the Board was aware that the tenant had obtained a restraining order against her son.

Had the Board known of the restraining order, it would not have found that the son was an occupant or that the tenant permitted him to commit an illegal act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, set aside the eviction order, and dismissed the landlord's application.

The self-represented plaintiff requested that the action be included in the Civil Case Management Pilot-One Judge Model.

The application was denied because the pilot project requires the consent of all parties, and the defendants confirmed they did not consent.

The court noted the parties could request case management under Rule 77 following the disposition of the defendants' upcoming motions to strike.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) arising from her breach of a mediated repayment agreement for rent arrears.

The tenant argued the LTB failed to apply the correct test under section 78(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act when it refused to set aside the eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's refusal to exercise its discretion to set aside the eviction was based on findings of fact, raised no error of law, and was reasonable given the tenant's repeated breaches of the agreement.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenants, who resided in rent-geared-to-income community housing, had stopped paying rent while disputing a retroactive rent increase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's jurisdiction did not extend to calculating rent-geared-to-income, and that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness during the hearing.

The court ordered vacant possession of the unit.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding him to be an unauthorized occupant of a Toronto Community Housing Corporation unit and ordering his eviction.

The Board found the original tenant had illegally transferred the tenancy to the appellant.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and rejected his arguments regarding statutory time limits, procedural fairness, burden of proof, and Charter rights.

The court held that the statutory time limits did not apply to social housing, the correct standard of proof was a balance of probabilities, and the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Board's factual findings.