Kristen A. Ley

The appellant, Serena Wall, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent and arrears, raising issues of repair, maintenance, and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence but found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the LTB’s decision, and dismissed the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order requiring him to remove a canvas shed from his rental unit or face eviction.

The tenant argued the LTB made errors of law and that community rules did not apply to his single-family residence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determinations on retaliation and eviction delay were unreviewable questions of fact and discretion.

The court also held that because the housing complex contained land lease homes, it constituted a land lease community under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, giving the landlord authority to enact and enforce community rules prohibiting canvas sheds.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a 15% rent reduction for tenants after the landlord unilaterally removed on-site storage lockers to build new rental units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the unreasonableness of the landlord's actions and the quantum of the rent reduction were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not subject to statutory appeal.

The Court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by crafting a global remedy for all affected tenants without requiring each individual tenant to testify.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision upholding Inspection Orders issued by the Hamilton Fire Department following a fire at his rental property.

The property, originally a two-bedroom house, had been renovated without permits to contain nine bedrooms and two kitchens, occupied by university students.

The appellant argued the building was an individual dwelling unit exempt from certain Fire Code requirements.

The Fire Safety Commission found insufficient evidence of a single tenancy or collective decision-making to classify the property as a single dwelling unit.

The Commission concluded the property operated as a lodging house and that the ordered fire safety measures, including fire separations and a second basement exit, were necessary to ensure fire safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the Review Decision was confirmed with amended compliance dates.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to anonymize the application due to privacy and safety concerns related to being stalked.

The respondent opposed the request, citing the importance of open justice.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's safety concerns regarding her stalker outweighed the open justice principle in these circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation resulting in his eviction.

After failing to attend a scheduled summary hearing, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be considered abandoned.

The applicant explained that he had not received notice due to a change of address following his eviction and a subsequent period of homelessness.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant failed to update his contact information as required, he had not abandoned his application and rescheduling the hearing would not cause substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the summary hearing to be rescheduled.

The applicant, a seasonal employee and resident at a trailer campground, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after she was not rehired following knee surgery and a change in campground ownership.

She also alleged sexual harassment and sexual solicitation by the campground's outside manager, claiming her site licence was not renewed because she rejected his advances.

The Tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim, finding no employment relationship with the new owners and no prima facie case.

The Tribunal also dismissed the sexual solicitation claim, finding the licence non-renewal was due to an unrelated violent incident involving the applicant's boyfriend.

However, the Tribunal found that the manager made sexually harassing comments and that the corporate respondent failed to reasonably investigate the complaint, awarding $1,000 in general damages for sexual harassment in accommodation.