Kristin A. Ley

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing accommodation based on disability, specifically regarding the respondents' refusal to permit accessibility modifications.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, having made findings on the failure to accommodate and ordering remedies.

The application was dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

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 applicant filed an application alleging housing discrimination and reprisal by the corporate respondent and a personal respondent.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as duplicative of previous applications and that the personal respondent be removed.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application, finding the reprisal allegations distinct from the previous applications.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, as she was acting in the course of her employment and the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer and instead ordered the application consolidated with the applicant's previous applications.

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 applicants, a same-sex couple, alleged discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation by their apartment building's superintendent and property management.

The Tribunal found that the superintendent repeatedly directed homophobic slurs at the applicants, creating a poisoned environment.

The corporate respondents were found vicariously liable for the superintendent's conduct and directly liable for failing to investigate the applicants' formal complaint.

The applications against the personal respondent were dismissed.

The corporate respondents were ordered to pay $7,500 to each applicant for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to implement a human rights policy and training.

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 applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a corporate respondent, remove an individual respondent, and amend her Application to add further particulars.

The respondents agreed to the removal of the individual but objected to the addition of the corporation, citing prejudice due to the time and expense of filing a second Response.

The Tribunal found that the parties agreed the corporation was the more appropriate party and ordered the addition of the corporate respondent and the removal of the individual respondent.

The Tribunal also allowed the applicant to amend her Application and granted the respondents 35 days to file a revised Response.

The applicant tenant alleged that the respondent property management company discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin, and engaged in reprisal.

The allegations stemmed from the respondent's failure to provide proper notice of a rent increase, delay in repairing his unit after construction damage, and failure to pay interest on his last month's rent deposit.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the rent increase notice issue was an administrative error, the interest payment policy was applied equally to all tenants, and there was no evidence linking the repair delay to Code-protected grounds.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed as the required elements were not met.

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.