Kristin A. Ley

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 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 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 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.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs against the respondent tenants.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to order the costs payable on a joint and several basis, instead directing that each respondent tenant pay an equal share of the total costs award.

The court issued an endorsement as to costs following an appeal.

Having reviewed the written submissions from both parties, the court fixed the costs payable to the successful respondent at $4,000.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found a 9 percent rent increase levied exclusively against pet-owning tenants was an impermissible penalty under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Board held that this penalty substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and awarded a rent abatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Board properly looked at the real substance of the rent increase.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The tenants appealed both the Board's decision to grant a review and its subsequent decision that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to their relationship.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash the appeal regarding the decision to grant a review, finding it was out of time and declining to extend the time limit.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the appeal on the merits, concluding it was premature to determine whether the appeal raised a question of law without full submissions.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board that ordered it to cease transferring hydro payment obligations to the tenants.

Following the Board's decision, the Ontario Energy Board ruled that the landlord's activities were unauthorized under the Electricity Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that any concerns about implementing smart sub-metering under the new rules should be addressed by applying to the Board for a variation of its order.