Piera A. Segreto

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision ordering eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued he was unable to pay rent due to injuries sustained when his apartment ceiling collapsed, which is the subject of a separate Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) personal injury claim.

Due to procedural errors by the tenant's counsel, the LTB did not adjudicate the merits of the rent abatement or stay request.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's findings on rent arrears but quashed the denial of abatement and stayed the eviction order, directing that the abatement and stay issues be determined by the SCJ alongside the personal injury claim to prevent injustice.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated October 12, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,746.00.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff claimed damages for physical and mental injuries suffered as a bystander who witnessed a fatal motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as Canadian courts have recognized a potential duty of care to bystanders who suffer nervous shock from witnessing horrific accidents.

The Cooperators General Insurance Company appealed a preliminary decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) finding that the claimant was a 'dependant' and thus an insured under the policy.

The claimant argued the appeal was premature as the hearing on the merits was scheduled for a later date.

The Divisional Court agreed, dismissing the appeal as premature to avoid fragmented administrative proceedings and inefficiency.

A municipal defendant sought costs after being named in a slip‑and‑fall action despite evidence that it neither owned nor maintained the property.

Ownership and maintenance responsibilities were admitted by the other defendants, yet the plaintiff refused to discontinue the claim against the municipality until after a summary judgment motion was served.

The court held that commencing the action and participating in discoveries was not unreasonable, but maintaining the claim thereafter unnecessarily increased litigation costs.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, though reduced from the amount claimed.