Linda Naidoo

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to return a portion of the tenant's last month's rent deposit after the tenant terminated the lease early.

The landlord argued the Board was functus officio when it amended its order to reduce the amount owed to the tenant, and that the Board erred by not applying common law expectation damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the principle of functus officio to correct a clerical error, and correctly relied on the specific provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act rather than common law damages.

The appellant residential tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord Tenant Board dismissing his motion to set aside an eviction order.

The central issue on appeal was whether the LTB Vice Chair denied the appellant procedural fairness by refusing his request for an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found that the Vice Chair properly exercised his discretion in denying the adjournment, noting the appellant's lack of diligence, failure to provide supporting documentation, and failure to participate remotely.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent.

After failing to comply with a previous court order to pay ongoing rent and arrears, the stay of eviction was lifted.

The court granted the appellant a final extension to perfect his appeal by January 20, 2025.

When the appellant failed to file any materials by the deadline, the respondent requested a dismissal.

The court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the court's order.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction based on an N12 notice for landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board erred by allowing the application to proceed after the landlord who served the notice died, by amending the application to name the landlord's estate, and by proceeding despite the landlord's failure to disclose a previous N12 notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the landlord's death did not invalidate the good faith intention present when the notice was served, the estate was properly named, and the Board had discretion to amend the application to include the previously undisclosed notice without prejudicing the tenant.

The appellants, long-term tenants of over 42 years, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy due to severe clutter and fire hazards in their unit.

The tenants argued that the Board denied them procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment, failing to follow proper review procedures, and issuing an unconditional eviction order.

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

The Court held that the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment was a reasonable exercise of discretion, the review process was fair, and the factual findings regarding the ongoing fire hazard were supported by the evidence.

The Board had the authority to issue an unconditional eviction order given the tenants' failure to de-clutter the unit over a two-year period.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board Review Order that dismissed their motion to void an eviction order.

The tenants argued the eviction order expired because it was not filed with the Sheriff within six months under s. 81 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the six-month period was stayed under s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act while the tenants' previous appeal was pending.

The landlord's cross-appeal was allowed, as the Board erred in law by automatically returning rent monies held in trust to the tenants without considering its discretion to waive the applicable rule in the interests of fairness.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision granting an eviction for purchaser's own use under s. 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in finding the property contained three or fewer units and denied her procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment and a video walkthrough.

The tenant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the evidence was available at the hearing and irrelevant to any legal error.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the number of units was a factual finding not reviewable on appeal, and the LTB reasonably exercised its discretion regarding the adjournment and evidentiary procedures.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that found the landlord did not unreasonably refuse to assign their lease to a family of five.

The LTB member had explicitly refused to consider whether the landlord's occupancy limits discriminated against the proposed assignees on the basis of family status under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB committed a serious error of law by failing to apply the Code when interpreting whether the refusal was 'arbitrary or unreasonable' under s. 95(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court articulated an adapted Moore test for assessing discrimination in lease assignments and remitted the matter to the LTB for a re-hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board, which allowed the respondent landlord to re-occupy the residential premises.

The tenant argued the Board erred in interpreting a lease renewal provision, mischaracterized a rent increase clause, and denied procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons on review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly interpreted the lease provision using a practical common-sense approach and that the review process met the requirements of procedural fairness under the Baker factors.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying a request to review a set aside order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the grounds raised were either not responsive to the record or challenged findings of fact and exercises of discretion, which are not permitted under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the tenant fully participated in the hearings and never requested an adjournment or accommodation.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her motion to void an eviction order under s. 74(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant argued that because she was on a month-to-month tenancy, s. 74(12), which limits a tenant to one such motion 'during the period of the tenant's tenancy agreement', reset every month.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant's interpretation would lead to an absurd result and render the statutory limitation meaningless, as a month-to-month tenancy is a continuation of the same tenancy agreement.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay $23,054.10 in rent and compensation to the respondent landlords.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Board refused her last-minute request for an adjournment on the basis of a religious holiday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

The court noted the appellant failed to provide timely notice of the conflict, did not comply with the Board's rules for adjournment requests, and had previously failed to comply with conditions attached to a prior adjournment.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy at a retirement residence for substantially interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of the complex through abusive behaviour towards staff and residents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error of law in the LTB's application of the substantial interference test.

The Court also rejected arguments that the LTB hearing was procedurally unfair or that the LTB failed to properly consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic when ordering the eviction.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an earlier eviction order.

The tenant had already been evicted and the unit re-rented to a new tenant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that even if successful, the Board had no jurisdiction to restore possession of the unit or force the landlord to provide a comparable unit, meaning a successful appeal would have no practical effect.

The court issued a case management endorsement setting the schedule and procedural directions for an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appeal was scheduled to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court via videoconference.

Directions were provided regarding the service of materials, electronic filing via a drop box, and the use of compendiums.