John Ross Done

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which terminated his tenancy for permitting illegal acts (drug possession and trafficking) and impairing the safety of others in a supportive housing complex.

The tenant argued the adjudicator made findings based on 'no evidence' and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the adjudicator's factual conclusions were supported by ample circumstantial evidence and her reasons were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld the cancellation of his disability benefits.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by finding he and another individual met the definition of 'spouse' under O. Reg. 222/98, asserting that a mutual written declaration was required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal made no error of law and was entitled to consider surrounding circumstances to determine if a declaration had been made.

The appellant, a person with a disability who shares joint custody of her three children on an alternating week basis, appealed a decision reducing the basic needs component of her income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal had awarded her 100 per cent of the shelter allowance but only 50 per cent of the basic needs allowance, reflecting the shared custody arrangement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjust the basic needs allowance to reflect the reality of joint custody, as the appellant did not have primary care and control of the children more than 50 per cent of the time.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held she was entitled to receive fifty percent of the basic needs component of income support for her three children.

The tribunal found that the appellant shared primary care and control of the children equally with her ex-husband under a joint custody arrangement.

The Divisional Court found no error in the tribunal's conclusion that the children were dependent children only fifty percent of the time, and dismissed the appeal.