Tony Bui

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and seeking compensation for mold damage.

The Board had found the landlord failed to prove the tenant caused the mold and granted the tenant a rent abatement for inadequate ventilation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Board misstated the legal test for causation in its conclusion, the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the Board's factual finding that the tenant did not cause the mold was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sought an order for possession of the defendants' unit pursuant to a statutory lien for unpaid common expenses, which included costs from prior compliance litigation regarding defective plumbing.

The defendants, self-represented, had resisted the plumbing replacement and made unfounded fraud allegations, leading to significant legal costs.

The court determined the value of the lien, specifically excluding the costs of the lien enforcement action itself based on a strict statutory interpretation of the Condominium Act.

The court granted a possessory order, suspended for 60 days to allow the defendants to discharge the lien, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for the action.

The defendant, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1255 (MTCC 1255), brought a motion to stay an action commenced by 23 St. Thomas Inc. and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1271 (MTCC 1271) in favour of mandatory arbitration under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court found that the pith and substance of MTCC 1271's claims related to the interpretation and application of the Reciprocal Agreement and Indemnity Agreement, making them arbitrable.

Consequently, MTCC 1271's claims were stayed.

However, the court declined to stay 23 St. Thomas Inc.'s claims, as it was not a party to the agreements and there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil.

The motion was granted in part, with an arbitrator appointed for the arbitrable claims.

The appellants appealed a compliance order requiring them to remove faulty Kitec plumbing from their condominium unit and allow inspection, along with an order for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that Kitec plumbing constituted a dangerous condition under s. 117 of the Condominium Act, justifying the remedial order.

The court also upheld the full indemnity costs award against the appellants due to their recalcitrance, fixing appeal costs at $4,500.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order under section 134 of the Condominium Act to permit entry into the respondents' unit to inspect and confirm the removal of Kitec plumbing.

The respondents had repeatedly refused entry to the corporation's engineers, preventing the building from being certified as Kitec-free.

The court found that Kitec plumbing is a dangerous condition and that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and the condominium's declaration.

The court granted the compliance order and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The eviction was originally granted based on the landlord requiring the unit for his son's use.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no questions of law, only challenging discretionary and factual findings regarding an adjournment request and section 83 relief.

The court also found the appeal was an abuse of process, launched solely to obtain an automatic stay while the tenant persistently failed to pay rent.

The appeal was quashed and the stay vacated.