John Done

The tenant appealed a Divisional Court order upholding a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the eviction application was invalid because the landlord failed to disclose a previous N12 notice, contrary to s. 71.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant also argued he was denied procedural fairness because his cognitive impairments prevented him from reasonably participating in the hearing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the mandatory disclosure requirements under s. 71.1 render an application invalid if breached.

Furthermore, the Board erred in its s. 209(2) review by narrowly focusing on whether the tenant received the hearing notice, while failing to consider his capacity to participate and whether eviction should be refused under s. 83.

The eviction application was quashed.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they did not receive the Notice of Hearing and that the landlord's application was void for omitting a prior N12 Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination regarding receipt of the Notice of Hearing was an unappealable finding of fact.

The court also held it was bound by prior precedent regarding the validity of the application.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The City of Kingston sought a permanent injunction to dismantle a homeless encampment in Belle Park, citing safety and public use concerns.

Respondents argued the By-Law prohibiting camping violated sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the By-Law was unconstitutional insofar as it prohibited homeless individuals from erecting temporary overnight shelter in public parks, as this grossly disproportionately affected their life, liberty, and security of the person.

However, the court did not extend this finding to daytime sheltering due to insufficient evidence.

The City's application for injunctive relief was dismissed because the proposed terms were too broad and did not comply with the ruling.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction due to delay under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that new facts, specifically a change in the law regarding the Social Benefits Tribunal's jurisdiction, justified reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged change in law was not new evidence and would not have altered the conclusion that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging that their landlord discriminated against them based on disability and receipt of public assistance by coercing them into a repayment contract without their legal counsel.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applications pending an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding no evidence that the LTB was dealing with the same facts and issues as the human rights applications.