Douglas Levitt

The moving party sought to review a decision dismissing his motion to extend the time to review a prior order, which had denied an extension of time to seek judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction decision.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the review motion, finding that the delay was excessive and prejudicial, and that the underlying proposed proceedings lacked merit because the LTB has no jurisdiction over rent-geared-to-income subsidy decisions.

The court noted that the moving party's recourse regarding his subsidy arrears lies with the municipality's administrative processes, not the LTB.

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

The tenant had failed to perfect the appeal by the agreed-upon deadline and did not respond to the motion or provide any explanation for the delay.

Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure by analogy, the Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal for delay.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued she had an ownership interest in the property under an agreement of purchase and sale, and raised issues of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and holding that the Board was entitled to determine the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also upheld the Board's refusal to grant relief from eviction.

This was a costs decision following the plaintiff's unsuccessful motion to certify a proposed class proceeding alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, knowing receipt, breach of contract, and oppression.

The court reviewed the general costs principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the specific principles governing class proceedings costs, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and access to justice.

Although the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on serious unproven allegations and the continued pursuit of non-certifiable claims, the court held the action was not frivolous or vexatious and declined punitive costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in the amounts claimed by the successful defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against her investment advisors and related corporations, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, knowing receipt, breach of contract, and oppression in relation to the sale of promissory notes.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claims did not satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court held that the existence of a fiduciary duty and any breach thereof would require individualized assessments, and that the secondary claims for knowing assistance and knowing receipt were similarly flawed and lacked a basis in fact.

The self-represented appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant failed to attend a scheduled case management teleconference after his request for an adjournment due to illness was denied for insufficient medical evidence.

The Divisional Court proceeded in his absence, setting a strict timetable for the tenant to obtain transcripts and perfect the appeal.

To maintain a partial stay preventing the landlord from re-leasing the premises, the court ordered the tenant to pay $1,500 immediately and $1,500 monthly towards rent arrears, which totaled nearly $21,000.

This case management endorsement addresses an appeal by a self-represented tenant against an eviction order, where the tenant had not paid rent for two years, claiming the unit was uninhabitable.

The court balanced the interests of the parties, allowing the landlord to re-enter and take possession of the unit, while providing the tenant a deadline to remove personal property.

The landlord was prohibited from re-leasing the premises pending further court order, and a future case management teleconference was scheduled to set a schedule for the appeal and consider interim payments or re-leasing restrictions.

The court clarified that the tenant's intention to seek a review or stay did not automatically stay the order.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying an adjournment of eviction proceedings pending the resolution of her Human Rights Tribunal application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had already found new accommodation and vacated the premises.

The court noted this dismissal does not affect her ongoing human rights application regarding the cancellation of her rent-geared-to-income subsidy.

The tenant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant argued he was entitled to withhold rent because the landlord failed to provide its address under s. 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the single judge's decision that the issue was one of mixed fact and law.

The court noted the tenant had lived rent-free for 16 months and owed over $40,000 in arrears.

The successful defendants on a summary judgment motion sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs, who were the responding parties to the costs motion, argued for no costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity with substantial reductions.

The court found no reason to depart from the usual rule that successful parties should be awarded costs.

However, it determined that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted as the plaintiffs' action, while unsuccessful, was not devoid of merit.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, applying principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations, and fixed the all-inclusive amount at $50,000, a reduction from the $72,128.46 partial indemnity initially claimed.

The plaintiffs, owners of a fitness club, sued the defendants for alleged misrepresentations regarding the availability of parking spaces and for failing to provide adequate alternative parking during construction.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the misrepresentation claims were barred by the 'four corners' clause in the lease agreement, the releases signed by the parties, and the expiry of the two-year limitation period, as there was no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment.

The court also found no triable issue regarding the alternative parking, as the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that membership cancellations were linked to parking issues.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving defendants were dismissed.

The applicant trucking company sought to terminate a factoring agreement with the respondent and requested a buy-out statement, a release letter, and the discharge of a PPSA registration.

The respondent refused, arguing it owned the purchased invoices absolutely and had no obligation to sell them back.

The court held that the PPSA applied to the transaction and, pursuant to section 56, the applicant was entitled to pay the outstanding obligations and have the registration discharged.

The court ordered the respondent to provide the buy-out statement and, upon payment, release the customers and discharge the PPSA registration.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the written submissions and applied the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding the requested hours and rates reasonable, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $8,963.38.

The appellants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting them as unauthorized occupants.

The Divisional Court found that the Board denied the appellants natural justice by refusing to consider their position that they resided on the premises based on an agreement with the landlord, not as tenants or unauthorized occupants.

The Board erred in law by ordering their eviction without any evidentiary basis under section 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing was ordered.

The appellants appealed an order striking their negligence action against a public housing provider and a police services board.

They alleged prolonged harassment by other residents and failures by the landlord and police to respond appropriately.

The court held the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action because no material facts were pleaded that could make the landlord liable for harm caused by third parties or impose an actionable duty on the police to conduct a proper investigation.

The court also held that most of the alleged incidents fell outside the limitation period, dismissed the fresh evidence motion, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Following a motion regarding a residential tenancy and alleged fraud, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had been successful in obtaining what they sought, as the appellant was permitted to remain in the home while the respondent began receiving rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

Following a decision on cross-motions where the appellant was permitted to remain in her home provided she paid rent to the respondent, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had achieved divided success, as the appellant remained in the home and the respondent received rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

The appellant brought a motion to stay her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute a collateral attack on the Board's order.

However, the court granted the appellant a six-month extension to perfect her appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments of $1,675 to the respondent in trust.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to the Divisional Court and brought a motion to stay the appeal pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute an improper collateral attack on the Board's proceedings.

However, the court granted the appellant an extension of time to perfect the appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments to the respondent to maintain the property.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that allowed an appeal from an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of a condominium cost-sharing agreement.

The dispute centered on the allocation of bulk hydro bill costs for the parking and service garage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly interpreted the agreement harmoniously to allocate the costs to the appellant, consistent with the building's single bulk hydro meter design.