Laura Clark

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent, which included parking charges.

He argued that the Board member was biased, denied him procedural fairness, and erred in finding that parking charges could be included in rent geared to income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and holding that the Board correctly applied a binding 2017 Divisional Court decision between the same parties.

The court also upheld the Board's finding that the parking agreement was not signed under duress.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa that required him to pay parking charges in addition to his rent-geared-to-income.

The applicant argued that parking charges must be included in the geared-to-income rent calculation under the Housing Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the Housing Services Act does not authorize adding parking charges to geared-to-income rent, it does not preclude a separate contractual agreement for parking under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court held that any dispute regarding the validity of the parking charges or the tenancy agreement must be determined by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that the original decision failed to consider her disability and its impact on her during the material time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely restating arguments already advanced and considered, and failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing by her landlord, Ottawa Community Housing.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the last incident involving the respondent occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide credible medical evidence that her disability prevented her from filing the application in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of sexual orientation, family status, and marital status after his long-term partner passed away.

The partner lived in an apartment managed by the respondent.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to treat him as a spouse, allowing the deceased's biological family to take control of the apartment and the applicant's personal belongings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the respondent knew or ought to have known about the 30-year relationship, as the couple had kept it private and never informed the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the grounds of sexual orientation, family status, and marital status.

Following the death of his same-sex partner of 30 years, the applicant alleged the respondent housing corporation failed to treat him as a spouse, resulting in the deceased's biological family taking control of the apartment and the applicant's personal belongings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the respondent had any knowledge of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased, as they lived in separate units and kept their relationship private.