Mark A. Glynn

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 appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board summarily rejecting her request for reconsideration of a consent eviction order.

The tenant argued that her mental health issues vitiated her consent and that the Vice Chair erred by deciding the reconsideration on its merits at the screening stage without an evidentiary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or denial of procedural fairness, as the tenant failed to provide sufficient information to support a preliminary finding of a serious error as required by the Board's rules.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, brought an ex parte motion for an interim quia timet injunction to restrain unknown individuals from blockading its railway operations in Ontario.

The blockades were part of a political protest regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass, irreparable harm due to significant economic damage and disruption of rail traffic, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff as the protests were occurring on private property.

The interim injunction was granted.

On a security for costs motion, the court adjourned the matter sine die because the parties failed to comply with the Consolidated Civil Provincial Practice Direction and materially underestimated the time required for a complex contested hearing.

The moving party's record exceeded 1,000 pages, the total uploaded materials exceeded 1,700 pages, and neither side filed the required compendium.

The court held that materials and authorities relied on must be brought to the judicial officer's attention during oral argument and that complex motions cannot proceed efficiently without proper compendiums and realistic time estimates.

The evidentiary record was frozen, amended factums were permitted, compendiums were required for the return date, and no costs were awarded for the adjournment.

The defendant brought a motion to strike a paragraph in the plaintiff's reply that referenced a Transportation Safety Board (TSB) investigation into a train derailment.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the paragraph.

The court granted the motion to strike and dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the proposed amendment did not meet the requirements for a reply, pleaded evidence rather than material facts, and was scandalous and prejudicial as it improperly implied wrongdoing based on the mere existence of a TSB investigation.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the order was made on consent and required leave to appeal.

The tenant brought a cross-motion for interim possession of her unit pending the appeal, arguing her consent was vitiated by mental health issues and lack of accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the validity of the consent was a serious issue to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the tenant's motion for interim possession subject to conditions, noting she would suffer irreparable harm if the unit was re-rented and her appeal rendered moot.