K. Ley

The appellants, occupants of campsites at a campground owned by the respondent, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply to their occupancy.

The appellants sought extensions of time to appeal the Board's final order, an order refusing to extend time for review, and an order denying review.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals of the extension and review orders as they were interlocutory.

While the court granted an extension of time to appeal the final order, it dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the Board member's extensive copying of legal context from a previous decision did not amount to procedural unfairness or demonstrate a lack of independent adjudication.

The self-represented applicant moved for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his claim that the landlord substantially interfered with his reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit following a flood.

The applicant argued he discovered a documentary inconsistency regarding an estimate for drying equipment.

The Divisional Court denied the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish apparent grounds for relief, as the LTB's decision was reasonable and there was no procedural unfairness.

The court also noted the applicant's significant delay in raising the issue.

Following the dismissal of the appellant landlord's appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The self-represented respondent sought over $800,000 in costs, while the appellant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent's costs claim was improperly advanced as a claim for damages.

However, recognizing that the respondent was successful and had to attend court, despite not filing responding materials, the court exercised its discretion to award the respondent a modest costs amount of $500.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a rent abatement to the tenant.

The tenant's unit was rendered uninhabitable by a fire caused by a neighbour, but the tenant continued paying rent until the tenancy was terminated by consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination that the landlord breached its maintenance obligations under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act was a question of mixed fact and law, over which the court had no jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the court held the LTB's decision to award an abatement was correct in law.