Kevin Lundy

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to allow Tenant Duty Counsel to make submissions and by failing to record the entire hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenants had a reasonable opportunity to participate and that Duty Counsel, acting as a support person, had no standing to make submissions after the parties had closed their cases.

The Court also held that the lack of a complete hearing recording did not breach procedural fairness, as the Board's reasons were sufficient for appellate review and no error of law was identified in the Board's refusal to set aside the eviction order.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting her for allegedly threatening a staff member.

The tenant had missed the initial hearing due to a sincere belief that paying a filing fee would resolve the matter, but the LTB denied her request for a review hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that procedural fairness and the broad interpretation of being 'reasonably able to participate' required granting a rehearing on the merits given the tenant's sincere confusion and diligence.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment (less 3 months for pre-trial custody) and a DNA order for assault and threatening offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence and DNA order amply justified given the appellant's lengthy criminal record, which included break and enter and criminal harassment.

The court held that the sentence did not offend the jump principle and that specific deterrence was of special significance.