Kristin A. Ley

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim order of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying a request to reschedule a hearing.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the application was premature and moot because the hearing was subsequently rescheduled and the application was ultimately deemed abandoned.

The court gave the self-represented applicant a final opportunity to amend his notice of application to challenge the final orders of the Board, failing which the court would consider dismissing the application.

The appellant tenants brought a motion to extend the time to perfect their appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, over six years after filing the notice of appeal.

The eviction order was originally based on the tenants' failure to address a pigeon nuisance on their balcony and denying the landlord access.

The Divisional Court applied the test for extending time and found that the tenants lacked a bona fide intention to appeal, failed to adequately explain the 6.5-year delay, and that the landlord suffered prejudice.

The motion was dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for delay.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision approving an Above-Guideline Rent Increase, arguing procedural fairness was denied when the LTB expedited the hearing ex parte and denied an in-person hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB properly exercised its discretion under its rules to shorten time due to harassment of the landlord's staff.

The Court also held the LTB did not err in ordering a written hearing, as the tenants failed to raise any Human Rights Code accommodation requests at the initial hearing.

The appellant property owner appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision regarding an Inspection Order that required repairs to a building's fire alarm system.

The appellant did not dispute the required repairs but sought an extension of the compliance date to December 31, 2025, citing delays in obtaining specialized parts and skilled trades.

The Fire Safety Commission found the appellant made reasonable attempts to comply but determined that a delay to the end of the year would unnecessarily compromise fire safety.

The Commission granted a shorter extension to September 15, 2025.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed David Tweneboa-Kodua’s motion for leave to appeal an order lifting a stay of eviction, finding the court lacked jurisdiction.

The proper avenue to challenge the Divisional Court’s order was a motion before a panel of that court, not an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court found the motion frivolous and an abuse of process, and made no order as to costs.

The tenant appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the landlord an above guideline rent increase (AGI) for eligible capital expenditures related to window and door replacements.

The tenant argued the replacements were regular maintenance, his specific unit should not face an increase as his windows were not replaced, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's determination that the work constituted capital expenditures under the Residential Tenancies Act, and no breaches of procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed motions by tenants Michael Schram and Leslie Mitchell for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal regarding the termination of their tenancy and the dismissal of their action.

The court found that the proposed appeals lacked merit and that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The court also dismissed the request for a stay of eviction and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of execution of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had failed to pay ongoing rent and arrears as directed at a case management conference.

The court found that the tenant's failure to keep rent current and comply with the payment conditions warranted lifting the stay.

The motion was granted and the stay was lifted immediately.

The tenant's motion for an extension of time to file an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision was previously dismissed.

The landlord sought costs of $1,500 for the motion, citing financial prejudice from unpaid rent and the stay of eviction.

The tenant did not provide responding submissions.

The court found the landlord's submissions had merit and awarded costs of $1,500.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants failed to comply with court directions, did not deliver responding materials, and failed to attend the virtual hearing despite multiple notices.

The court found the appeal did not raise a valid question of law, was manifestly devoid of merit, and was brought solely to delay the eviction.

The motion to quash was granted and the stay of the eviction order was lifted.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal from a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy for rent arrears.

The court applied the factors for granting an extension of time, noting the tenant's history of non-payment, the significant arrears, and the lack of apparent merit in the proposed grounds of appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that granted an extension of time to comply with a fire inspection order regarding excessive combustible materials in a tenant's unit.

The landlord sought a further extension of up to seven months, arguing it could not comply without the uncooperative tenant's consent and was pursuing eviction at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Fire Safety Commission denied the extension, prioritizing the fire and life safety of the building's residents and noting the uncertainty of the LTB proceedings.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the residential tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenant's appeal challenged the Board's findings of fact regarding service of the application and whether rent had been paid.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the appeal had no merit as it failed to raise a question of law as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The self-represented tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy.

At the hearing of the appeal, the tenants requested an adjournment to file materials, citing a traumatic brain injury.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment, noting it was the second such request and no medical evidence was provided.

On the merits, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board did not unreasonably exercise its discretion in denying a prior adjournment request and proceeding in the tenants' absence.

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.

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

The tenant had accumulated approximately $45,000 in rent arrears and failed to perfect her appeal.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit as it did not raise a question of law and was an abuse of process brought solely for delay.

The landlord's motion to quash was granted, and the tenant's cross-motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The Landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying an above-guideline rent increase for the cost of installing a fall arrest roof anchor system.

The Landlord argued it was denied procedural fairness when the LTB refused an adjournment to allow it to gather evidence proving the installation was legally necessary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Landlord bore the onus of proving the expenditure was necessary to comply with building standards and should have attended the hearing prepared with such evidence.

The Court also rejected the argument that the LTB improperly relied on a confidential prehearing note.

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) sought representation orders under Rule 10.01(1)(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to represent unknown tenants and landlords, respectively, in a motion to set aside an order suspending residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the requests, finding that the case did not fall within the enumerated types of proceedings for a Rule 10 order and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting one, as each tenant facing eviction has unique circumstances.

Furthermore, the court held that ACTO, as an advocacy group without a direct interest or shared cause of action, was not an appropriate representative.

The moving parties sought an expedited appeal of an order dismissing their motion for an urgent stay of a previous order that ended the moratorium on residential evictions in Ontario.

The Attorney General indicated an intention to bring a motion to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion judge directed that the motion to quash be heard in writing on an expedited basis, and adjourned the request for an expedited appeal to the panel hearing the motion to quash.

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and two residential tenants moved for an urgent stay of an order by Chief Justice Morawetz, which had varied a previous order to end a moratorium on residential evictions in Ontario.

The applicants sought to reinstate the moratorium, arguing that lifting it was premature due to ongoing COVID-19 risks, especially for vulnerable tenants.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, as the Chief Justice's original order was an exercise of inherent jurisdiction to control court processes, not a policy decision on the pandemic.

The court emphasized that the issues raised by tenants were policy matters for the government, not legal issues for the court.