Joseph Hoffer

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application for a rent increase above the guideline.

The Board dismissed the application after the landlord failed to meet procedural deadlines, finding that the landlord had received the notice of hearing and was the author of its own misfortune.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's determination regarding the receipt of notice was a finding of fact not subject to appeal, and that there was no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's refusal to extend time or reschedule the hearing.

The appellant landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that their mobile home park was subject to rent control.

The landlords argued that the property was exempt under section 6(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act because it was not used as a trailer park before November 1, 1991.

The Board found that because a bungalow on the property had been used for residential purposes before 1991, the exemption did not apply.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's interpretation, dismissing the appeal.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs against the respondent tenants.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to order the costs payable on a joint and several basis, instead directing that each respondent tenant pay an equal share of the total costs award.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found a 9 percent rent increase levied exclusively against pet-owning tenants was an impermissible penalty under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Board held that this penalty substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and awarded a rent abatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Board properly looked at the real substance of the rent increase.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board that ordered it to cease transferring hydro payment obligations to the tenants.

Following the Board's decision, the Ontario Energy Board ruled that the landlord's activities were unauthorized under the Electricity Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that any concerns about implementing smart sub-metering under the new rules should be addressed by applying to the Board for a variation of its order.

The appellant tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member erred in law by concluding he lacked jurisdiction to award a rent abatement for a cockroach infestation, despite the tenants not specifically requesting it in their original materials.

The court also found the member erred by basing the $1,000 fumigation compensation award on a finding unsupported by evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board to determine the appropriate rent abatement and reasonable fumigation compensation.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the tenants a 2.5 per cent rent reduction due to the loss of green space resulting from infill construction.

The Board had found the lands constituted a 'common recreational facility' under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that ordinary green space does not meet the statutory definition of a facility, which requires something built or installed to perform a particular function.

The Court also found the Board erred in law by calculating the rent reduction using a novel mathematical approach rather than the mandatory method prescribed by regulation.

The tenant brought a motion appealing the decision of Keenan J., which upheld a Tribunal order evicting her for disruptive conduct.

The tenant argued the Tribunal erred in finding her conduct continued after receiving an N5 notice, misapplied section 84(1) of the Tenant Protection Act, and failed to properly assess the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding overwhelming evidence that the landlord accommodated the tenant's disability to the point of undue hardship and that the Tribunal made no errors of law.