Kenneth Hale

Four tenants of cottage sites owned by Grant Lake Forest Resources Ltd. challenged significant rent increases imposed when their original tenancy agreements expired and were replaced with new agreements.

The landlord did not provide the required 90-day notice of rent increase under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the increases void and ordered repayment of excess rent.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

On appeal, the landlord argued that the new tenancy agreements constituted a new term of tenancy, exempting the increases from the notice requirements.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the notice provisions apply regardless of whether a new agreement is executed, as long as the parties and premises remain the same.

The appellant tenants appealed a decision denying them a rent abatement after their apartment building's elevator was out of service for 96 days due to a latent defect.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had acted diligently and reasonably in maintaining the elevator and replacing it, and thus did not breach its duty to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's contextual interpretation of s. 20(1), which considered the reasonableness of the landlord's actions, was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had fallen into arrears after a social housing agency discontinued paying its portion of the rent, a decision the tenant was challenging via judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the accumulation of rental arrears did not constitute demonstrable and unusual hardship for the landlord.

Furthermore, lifting the stay would likely render the tenant homeless and remove his incentive to pursue the judicial review, which could ultimately result in the arrears being paid.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him on the basis that the landlords required the basement unit for their daughter's use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by accepting an affidavit from the landlord on behalf of the 15-year-old daughter, failing to determine good faith, and ignoring the tenant's disabilities and the landlords' alleged breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the affidavit acceptable given the daughter's age and concluding the Board had reasonably considered all other matters.

The appellant tenant entered into an agreement to rent an apartment and paid a deposit equal to one month's rent.

Six weeks before taking possession, the appellant repudiated the agreement and sought the return of the deposit under s. 107(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord refused and retained the deposit.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 107(1) does not grant an automatic return of a deposit when a tenant unilaterally repudiates the agreement.

However, the court ordered the return of the deposit in this case because the landlord's rental application contained an illegal forfeiture clause and the landlord improperly treated the deposit as a penalty rather than security for rent.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application for the return of a rent deposit.

After signing a rental application and paying a deposit, the tenant unilaterally decided not to sign the tenancy agreement or take possession of the unit.

The Divisional Court held that s. 107(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires a landlord to repay a rent deposit if vacant possession is 'not given', applies only when the landlord refuses or is unable to provide the premises.

Because the tenant's own repudiation prevented her from taking possession, she was not entitled to the return of the deposit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to appreciate the medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal considered all evidence, correctly applied s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, and properly determined that the appellant did not have a substantial impairment.

The tenant appealed an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order terminating her tenancy and evicting her for impairing safety and causing property damage.

The tenant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly identified the legal obligations and that what constitutes reasonable accommodation is a question of fact, not law.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of an order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal requiring her to vacate the premises.

The tenant had orally agreed to move out but subsequently changed her mind and remained in possession, prompting the landlord to obtain an ex parte order.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal raised no question of law as required by s. 196 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, noting that s. 188 dictates substance over form.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the certificate of stay was set aside.