Kristin A. Ley

The tenant appealed an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board Member who ordered the eviction had previously acted as legal counsel against the tenant on behalf of the building's former property manager in prior eviction proceedings.

The Divisional Court found that an objective observer could reasonably assume the Member's prior knowledge of the tenant's history with the landlord might unconsciously influence her decision, particularly when making credibility findings and exercising discretion under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a hearing de novo.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order requiring it to remedy the audibility levels of the fire alarm system in its older residential building.

The appellant argued that the Office of the Fire Marshal exceeded its jurisdiction in creating the audibility Guideline, and that the Fire Department unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating the Guideline as a mandatory regulation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the OFM had the statutory authority to issue the Guideline, the Guideline was permissive rather than mandatory, and the Fire Department appropriately exercised its discretion.

The Commission concluded that the Inspection Order was necessary to ensure fire safety and confirmed the order.

The appellants, tenants in a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting them for seriously impairing the safety of others.

The eviction was based on the tenants keeping an unlawfully large number of unvaccinated feral cats, which had attacked a property manager's dog.

The appellants argued the Board erred by relying on the cats' unvaccinated status, as it was not explicitly listed as a ground in the eviction notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ground for eviction was serious impairment of safety, and the unvaccinated status of the cats was merely evidence supporting that ground.

The majority held that the Board's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant brought a motion seeking production of inspection orders issued to 102 other properties by the respondent.

The appellant argued these documents were relevant to show that the respondent's inspectors treated a fire alarm acoustics guideline as mandatory.

The tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of inspection orders that specifically dealt with acoustic issues related to fire alarm systems, subject to redactions for privacy.

The Office of the Fire Marshal brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding a fire safety inspection order.

The appellant challenged the inspector's jurisdiction to enforce technical guidelines issued by the Fire Marshal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, adding the Fire Marshal as a party limited to the issue of its jurisdiction to make the guideline and its effect on fire inspections, without the right to argue the merits of the underlying appeal or augment the record.

The tenant appealed a consent order from the Landlord and Tenant Board that terminated her tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal did not raise any question of law and was an attempt to resile from a consent order.

The court quashed the appeal but granted the tenant a brief grace period to pay the arrears and costs to avoid eviction.

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2011 alleging discrimination in housing based on disability.

Over five years, the applicant failed to meet numerous deadlines, provide requested medical information, or retain counsel due to complex health issues.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether to defer or dismiss the application.

Finding that the applicant was incapable of participating in the hearing process for the foreseeable future, the Tribunal dismissed the application to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution, noting that the dismissal was not due to fault and preserved the applicant's right to file a new application if her health improved.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for prospective rent after the tenant vacated the unit pursuant to a Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early.

The tenant had been noted in default.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness by the Deputy Judge in requiring the landlord to prove liability.

The court further held that under the Residential Tenancies Act, when a landlord serves a notice of early termination and the tenant complies by moving out, the tenancy is terminated and there is no common law remedy for prospective rent.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on the basis that it had recently retained counsel who was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Direction on Scheduling requires extraordinary circumstances for an adjournment.

The Tribunal held that a party's failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and evicting them for committing an illegal act (breach of zoning by-law).

The Divisional Court found the Board erred by reversing the onus of proof regarding the zoning issue when there was no evidence the cabin was in the prohibited zone.

Furthermore, the Board erred in law by failing to dismiss the eviction application under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found the eviction application was brought because the tenants had successfully enforced their legal rights to resist an illegal rent increase, which mandates refusal of the eviction regardless of the landlord's good or bad faith.

The appeal was allowed and the eviction application dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, seeking to keep a hot tub on her exclusive use common element for medical treatment.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a final order under s. 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, permitting the hot tub to remain subject to specific conditions regarding insurance, liability, maintenance, and its eventual removal upon the sale of the unit.

The applicants, a family of tenants, alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, race, and gender, as well as reprisal, after the landlord deactivated their key fob for non-payment, temporarily preventing the disabled minor applicant from accessing the pool for therapy.

The applicants also alleged the superintendent used a racial slur during a subsequent altercation, and that the property manager engaged in reprisal by refusing to discuss the tenancy with the tenant's husband.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the fob deactivation was strictly due to non-payment, preferring the superintendent's evidence that no slurs were used, and concluding the property manager's refusal to speak with the husband was a standard privacy practice requiring the named tenant's authorization.

The applicant, who suffers from multiple chemical sensitivities and other disabilities, alleged the respondent landlord failed to accommodate her during apartment renovations.

She sought an interim remedy requiring the respondent to clean her unit and reproduce her allegedly contaminated documents.

The respondent requested the Application be dismissed for abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to file a Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss but refused further extensions for the Reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the interim remedy request, finding the apartment cleaning moot as the applicant had vacated, and the document reproduction unnecessary as the applicant could arrange it herself.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include specific remedies, namely monetary compensation for injury to dignity and an order for the respondent to install a ramp to his unit.

The respondent neither consented nor objected.

The Tribunal applied the Wozenilek test and allowed the amendments, finding no apparent prejudice to the respondent as the amendments simply clarified the remedies sought.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents related to the respondents' internal investigation into her allegations of sexual harassment.

Although the request was made prior to mediation, the respondents consented to producing the documents on the condition that they only be used for the purpose of the proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to produce the documents and reminded the parties of Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which prohibits the use of produced documents for any other purpose.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation based on disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a mutual release when selling her mobile home to the respondent to settle eviction proceedings, and that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the mutual release was valid and barred claims related to the sale of the home, as the applicant understood the document and was not under duress.

For the remaining allegations, the Tribunal found the application was filed out of time and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith due to her disability or reliance on legal advice.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action alleging negligent misrepresentation arising from statements allegedly made by campground owners regarding the ability to reside permanently at a campground trailer site.

The plaintiff claimed she relied on representations that the trailer could be occupied year‑round when purchasing the trailer, but municipal zoning permitted only seasonal occupancy.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendants made an untrue or misleading statement permitting permanent residency.

Accordingly, the misrepresentation claim failed.

The defendants succeeded in part on their counterclaim for unpaid hydro, lost rental income, and storage fees for the plaintiff’s trailer remaining on the property.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates in her human rights application, citing medical reasons supported by a doctor's note indicating debilitation from fatigue and respiratory issues.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, noting a history of delay and requesting dismissal.

The Tribunal found the medical information sufficient to support the adjournment request and granted it, while directing the parties to consider mediation and setting deadlines for the applicant's outstanding Reply.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal more than one year after her resignation.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a good faith explanation for the delay, as she had initially pursued claims with the WSIB and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and only filed with the Tribunal after learning the CICB would not address her broader harassment allegations.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's implementation of smart metering for electricity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act in concluding that the landlord was entitled to increase rent for adding electricity as a prescribed service and that payments to an independent contractor were not illegal charges.

The court also held that the Board's findings on harassment and coercion were factual and raised no question of law.