Warren Rigby

The landlord appealed an LTB decision dismissing his application to evict the tenant and convert the unit to commercial use.

The LTB had found the landlord failed to obtain necessary permits and did not act in good faith, having served the eviction notice the same day the tenant won a previous LTB application declaring the unit residential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LTB's factual finding that the eviction notice was not served in good faith, as it was an attempt to undo the tenant's prior success.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant established he suffers from chronic pain with functional impairments, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,460.00 for the chronic pain assessment and interest on overdue benefits, but denied the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their application for termination and compensation for water damage to the rental unit's flooring.

The Board had found that while the tenant's mopping caused the damage, it was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore not negligent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlords' arguments challenged findings of fact and mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant condominium corporation applied for an order requiring the respondent tenants and intervenor owner to remove material stored in a parking unit, which violated the corporation's declaration and rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the stored material was not a motor vehicle, constituting a breach of the governing documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents and intervenor to remove the material within 21 days, failing which the corporation could remove it and charge back the costs, and awarded $150 in costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a court-ordered deadline for serving an amended statement of claim to add a winter maintenance contractor as a defendant.

The presumptive limitation period had expired, but a previous order allowed the addition based on discoverability, setting a service deadline of March 31, 2016.

The plaintiff failed to meet this deadline and delayed over two years before bringing this motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the delay, show inadvertence, or prove that the proposed defendant would not suffer prejudice.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The respondent insurer denied payment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the monetary limit had been reached.

The applicant argued the MIG did not apply due to a pre-existing medical condition and chronic pain.

The adjudicator found insufficient evidence to prove the pre-existing condition prevented maximal medical recovery under the MIG, and preferred the respondent's independent medical examination over the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon's report regarding chronic pain.

The application was dismissed.