Jane Ferguson

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 respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy.

The Board had ordered eviction based on the tenant's failure to clean up dog feces, denial of access to a real estate agent, and failure to pay the water bill.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the tenant's grounds of appeal were challenges to findings of fact rather than questions of law as required by s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appeal was deemed manifestly devoid of merit and an attempt to delay eviction.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for rental arrears.

The tenant had failed to attend the Board hearing, failed to pay $14,000 in arrears, and filed the appeal to obtain an automatic stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court found no error of law in the Board's decision and concluded the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and brought solely for delay.

The appeal was quashed, the stay lifted, and costs of $5,000 were awarded to the landlord.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed because the applicant failed to respond to requests to provide dates for rescheduling a summary hearing.

The applicant claimed she had contacted the Tribunal by phone and was in extreme circumstances.

The Tribunal found no record of the phone call and noted she had filed another application during the same period using the same contact information.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden for reconsideration and dismissed the request.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the unit in good faith for her own use.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's motion to admit fresh evidence and rejected arguments that the Board failed to consider s. 72(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act or erred in its good faith analysis.

The appeal was dismissed, as the tenant failed to identify any error of law.

The appellant, a tenant of 33 years, sought an extension of time to appeal an eviction order made under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the appellant had formed an intention to appeal, the delay was short and explained, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The court held that the appellant raised an arguable ground of appeal regarding the interpretation of s. 72(2)(a) of the Act, which had not been previously judicially interpreted.

The application to extend time was granted.

The tenants appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal awarding them $2,000 after the landlord disposed of their possessions following an eviction.

The tenants sought $30,000 and argued the Tribunal erred by failing to give reasons for the quantum of damages and for not allowing them to proceed in court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the failure to give reasons is an error of law, and set aside the damages award, allowing the tenants to elect whether to proceed before the Tribunal or a court.