Jacob de Klerk

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly apply s. 27 of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding the reasonableness of the landlord's entry, and failed to consider the landlord's duty to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Board correctly determined the entry was lawful, and there was no evidence connecting the tenant's medical condition to his repeated refusals to allow entry, precluding any finding on accommodation.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) arising from her breach of a mediated repayment agreement for rent arrears.

The tenant argued the LTB failed to apply the correct test under section 78(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act when it refused to set aside the eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's refusal to exercise its discretion to set aside the eviction was based on findings of fact, raised no error of law, and was reasonable given the tenant's repeated breaches of the agreement.

The tenant brought a motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of the appeal.

The tenant, who lived in supportive housing and had mental health issues, failed to perfect the appeal on time.

The court found that the tenant demonstrated an ongoing intention to appeal and that the delay was understandable given his deficits.

The court also found that the potential prejudice to the tenant outweighed any prejudice to the landlord, and that the appeal had merit because the Board member may have relied on inadmissible double hearsay.

The motion was granted, the time to perfect was extended, and the eviction was stayed pending the appeal.