Orna Raubfogel

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding him to be an unauthorized occupant of a Toronto Community Housing Corporation unit and ordering his eviction.

The Board found the original tenant had illegally transferred the tenancy to the appellant.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and rejected his arguments regarding statutory time limits, procedural fairness, burden of proof, and Charter rights.

The court held that the statutory time limits did not apply to social housing, the correct standard of proof was a balance of probabilities, and the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Board's factual findings.

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

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by misinterpreting sections 7(1)2 and 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding rent increases.

The Divisional Court found that the Board made factual findings that the rental unit was exempt from guideline rent increases and that the lease agreement did not conflict with the Act.

As appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law, and the tenant raised no bona fide questions of law, the motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which summarily dismissed his discrimination complaint against the respondent housing corporation regarding his eviction for rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it to be an abuse of process as the applicant sought to relitigate his employment termination and eviction, which had already been settled or decided.

The court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and entitled to deference.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $2,644.55 and barred from bringing further applications without paying outstanding costs and obtaining leave.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a judge's decision refusing to strike the respondent's documents or order costs and damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent acted reasonably in filing its documents one day after the applicant filed his Certificate of Perfection, causing no prejudice.

The court also noted that damages cannot be ordered in a judicial review application and there was no evidence of judicial bias.

The self-represented applicant appeared before the Divisional Court for a judicial review application and indicated he was unwell.

Although he did not request an adjournment and accused the panel of bias, the court decided to adjourn the matter to a fixed date to ensure the applicant was capable of fully presenting his arguments.

The respondent's request to proceed was denied.

The applicant brought a motion requesting that the panel recuse itself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because two of the judges had previously heard other cases involving him in which he was unsuccessful.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the applicant failed to meet the test for reasonable apprehension of bias, as an adverse decision in a prior case does not demonstrate a lack of impartiality.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's responding materials on a judicial review application, arguing they were filed outside the 30-day time limit prescribed by Rule 68.04(4).

The respondent had waited to file its materials until the applicant perfected his application, acting on advice from the Divisional Court office.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's conduct was reasonable, responsible, and in good faith, and that the applicant suffered no prejudice from the delay.

The appellant appealed from orders striking his statement of claim against seven respondents without leave to amend and setting aside a noting in default against one respondent.

The motions judge found the claims, which included allegations of torture and invasion of privacy, to be frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and lacking any reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the decision to set aside the noting in default and agreeing that the pleadings were properly struck under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on receipt of social assistance, 15 months after being evicted for rent arrears pursuant to a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order.

At a preliminary hearing, the adjudicator refused the applicant's request to recuse herself for alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on three separate grounds: it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant did not qualify for the rent subsidy he claimed; it was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate the LTB consent order; and it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a 2009 Landlord and Tenant Board decision that resulted in his eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the five-year delay was unreasonable and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a continuous intention to appeal.

Furthermore, the delay caused prejudice to the respondents, and the proposed grounds of appeal raised questions of fact rather than questions of law as required by the legislation.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his request for a review of an eviction order.

The tenant had failed to attend the initial hearing and requested a review, citing a substance abuse problem as the potential reason for his absence.

The Board dismissed the review without holding a hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by failing to conduct a further inquiry or hearing into the tenant's reasons for non-attendance, particularly given the quasi-constitutional status of the Human Rights Code.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new review hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed a Review Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court.

The tenant argued that she was inappropriately charged for utilities as part of her rent geared-to-income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The court held that under section 203 of the Residential Tenancies Act, the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine eligibility for or the amount of rent geared-to-income assistance, which must be addressed through the review process under the Housing Services Act, 2011.

The court declined to award costs.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his applications for repair costs and a rent abatement.

The tenant had alleged the landlord failed to repair his stove and refrigerator and interfered with his reasonable enjoyment due to a mould issue.

The Board found the landlord acted reasonably by offering alternative mould-free accommodation, which the tenant refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim alleging harassment, injuries, and inadequate police response at a social housing complex.

The court held the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the landlord or the police board.

The landlord’s liability for third‑party conduct under the Residential Tenancies Act requires foreseeability and notice of repeated conduct, which had not been properly pleaded, and most alleged incidents were also statute‑barred.

Claims against the police board for failure to investigate or lay charges could not ground a civil cause of action due to police discretion in investigative and charging decisions.

The claim was dismissed as statute‑barred and legally insufficient.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy due to illegal activities committed by her two sons, who were occupants of the unit.

The illegal activities included possession of stolen property and attacking a security officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision to terminate the tenancy under section 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, or in its refusal to impose a condition barring one of the sons from the premises.

The applicant, a Community Patrol Officer, suffered a workplace knee injury and alleged that his employer failed to accommodate his disability and discriminatorily terminated his employment.

The employer offered modified desk duties at the same pay rate, which were consistent with the applicant's medical restrictions.

The applicant refused to attempt a return to work for over three years, claiming an inability to commute to the work location, an assertion unsupported by medical evidence.

The Tribunal found that the employer met its duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship and that the termination was a lawful response to the applicant's failure to attend work, not discrimination.

The applicants brought a joint motion on consent for an order allowing their application for judicial review of several decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, quashed the Tribunal's decisions, and ordered that the matter be adjudicated in a hearing de novo before a differently constituted panel of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference to address procedural issues following a decision on the merits.

The applicant consented to the removal of the personal respondents, as the allegations concerned actions taken in the course of their employment.

The corporate respondent requested a deferral of the Tribunal proceedings pending the outcome of the applicant's reactivated WSIB claim.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting that while there was potential for overlapping remedies, the Tribunal proceeding was significantly more advanced than the WSIB claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability regarding his eviction from a rental unit.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found that the Board had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, having heard the same discrimination arguments and found no discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant tenant sought a stay of an eviction order pending an appeal.

A previous stay had been lifted by another judge due to the tenant's failure to pay rent on time, resulting in over $30,000 in arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for a stay, finding no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as there had been no material change in circumstances since the previous order.

In the alternative, the court held that a stay was not warranted on the merits, as the tenant failed to meet the test for a stay and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.