Ken Wise

The tenant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering eviction for persistent late payment of rent.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in law by relying on incorrect figures, applying the wrong test under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and breaching procedural fairness by correcting clerical errors in the decision without notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding that the LTB properly corrected the clerical errors under its rules, considered all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction, and made no reviewable errors of law or procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) issued by the Registrar for holding itself out as a builder of new homes without a licence, contrary to s. 37(2) of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's website and social media actively advertised custom home building services, constituting a contravention of the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the APO of $8,152.17 was reasonable, noting the appellant's delayed compliance after being notified of the contravention, and confirmed the order.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her action for adverse possession and compelling her attendance at a judgment debtor examination.

The motion judge dismissed the action despite the respondent not requesting that relief at the hearing and without giving the appellant notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the dismissal of the action due to procedural unfairness, but upheld the order compelling the appellant's attendance at the judgment debtor examination.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy and ordering payment of rent arrears, as well as a subsequent review order denying their request for a review without a hearing.

The tenants had missed the original hearing due to confusion over receiving two different hearing notices.

The Divisional Court held that it was procedurally unfair for the Board to deny the review request at the preliminary stage without a hearing, given the genuine confusion.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Board for a new hearing solely on the issue of rent arrears, as the eviction had already been enforced.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff argued that he brought the action in good faith, suffers from a head injury, and has limited income.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $10,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion seeking retroactive leave under s. 140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence and continue an action against the police board and several officers for false arrest and related claims.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's history of litigation against the police and the evidence provided in support of the current claim.

The court found that while the proceeding was not an abuse of process, the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of showing reasonable grounds for the proceeding, as he provided only a bald affidavit adopting the statement of claim and failed to refute police disclosure records indicating he was intoxicated and caused a disturbance.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

During a multi-day family and civil trial involving claims for divorce, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and tort and contract allegations, counsel for the plaintiff/respondent sought to withdraw due to sudden illness.

The plaintiff requested leave under Rule 4 of the Family Law Rules for an articling student to represent her.

The court reviewed authorities requiring special circumstances to permit representation by a non-lawyer and considered the student's status, including an unresolved Law Society good character issue and the absence of an articling principal.

The court concluded that permitting the student to conduct a complex ten‑day trial would be unfair to the opposing party and the court.

The request for leave was denied.

An application was brought seeking appointment as guardian of property and guardian of the person for an elderly individual alleged to be suffering neglect while living with two children who held powers of attorney.

A capacity assessment confirmed the individual was incapable of managing property and personal care.

The court considered whether guardianship was necessary under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, given the existence of valid continuing powers of attorney.

The court held that guardianship should not be imposed where an adequate, less restrictive alternative exists and where strong evidence of misconduct by attorneys is absent.

Because the allegations of neglect were disputed and could not be resolved on the affidavit record, and because the evidence did not establish that the incapable person’s interests were being harmed, the court declined to disturb the existing arrangements.