Kevin Kok

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had accumulated over $50,000 in rent arrears and filed an appeal alleging evidentiary and procedural errors by the Board.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it was manifestly devoid of merit as it failed to raise any extricable question of law.

The court also found the appeal was an abuse of process brought solely to delay the eviction, as evidenced by the tenant's correspondence boasting about using the appeal process to halt enforcement.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application for a rent increase above the guideline.

The Board dismissed the application after the landlord failed to meet procedural deadlines, finding that the landlord had received the notice of hearing and was the author of its own misfortune.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's determination regarding the receipt of notice was a finding of fact not subject to appeal, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's refusal to extend time or reschedule the hearing.

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 tenants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to order a de novo hearing of their eviction applications.

The original LTB member had already conducted a consolidated hearing and determined that the landlord breached s. 83(3)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act by treating tenant union members differently during rent arrears negotiations.

The only remaining issue was identifying which specific tenants had made repayment proposals.

Before making this final factual determination, the member resigned.

The LTB subsequently ordered a de novo hearing without consulting the parties.

The Divisional Court held that ordering a de novo hearing in these circumstances, where the substantive legal issues had already been comprehensively decided, was a denial of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was granted, the original decision was reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the LTB solely to determine which tenants made repayment proposals.