Mark Melchers

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of Landlord and Tenant Board orders pending the tenant's appeal, citing rental arrears.

The court found that the tenant had paid the majority of the arrears and December rent, leaving only a minimal amount owing.

The court declined to lift the stay but adjourned the motion without prejudice if future rent was not paid.

The court also granted the self-represented tenant a final extension of time to perfect her appeal.

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

The tenant, who was incarcerated, failed to appear and had previously failed to comply with strict conditions for an extension of time to appeal, including paying rent and arrears.

The court found the notice of appeal identified no grounds of appeal or questions of law.

The appeal was deemed manifestly devoid of merit and quashed, with the automatic stay lifted.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding she was not a tenant and the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply.

She argued the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by refusing to allow her to play audio recordings of a witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's evidentiary ruling was discretionary and not a breach of procedural fairness, as the witness was present at the hearing, gave oral evidence, and was available for cross-examination on any prior inconsistent statements.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him as an unauthorized occupant.

He argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused an adjournment, denied his request for human rights accommodation, and removed him from the virtual hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was the author of his own misfortune due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to follow the adjudicator's directions.

The Court also found no errors of law in the Board's determination that the appellant was an unauthorized occupant rather than a tenant.

The appellant brought a motion for interim relief pending her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found she was not a tenant and dismissed her wrongful lockout application.

She sought an order permitting her to live in the rental unit pending the appeal or a stay preventing the landlord from re-renting the unit.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness, but denied interim possession due to the balance of convenience.

However, the court granted a stay prohibiting the landlord from re-renting the premises pending the expedited appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for substantially interfering with the landlord's lawful rights and interests.

The Board had found that the tenant's aggressive litigation conduct and obstruction of pest control inspections constituted substantial interference with the landlord's maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as there was no evidence of ongoing pest infestation or future obstruction, and the Board failed to analyze whether the litigation conduct met the threshold of 'substantial' interference.

The applicant, a tenant who uses an electric wheelchair, alleged discrimination after being served with an eviction notice following an altercation in the building's elevator.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The adjudicator denied the applicant's requests for an adjournment, to amend the application, and for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry.

The application was dismissed because the applicant could not point to any evidence, beyond her own beliefs, connecting the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision requiring them to pay the landlord for electricity arrears.

The landlord had installed suite metering and, when the tenants refused to pay the provider directly, averaged their usage and added it to their rent.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the tenancy agreements requiring tenants to pay for electricity were not void for uncertainty.

The court also agreed that the landlord was entitled to increase the rent for a prescribed service under the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the agreements did not violate provisions prohibiting contracting out of the Act.

The moving party sought to set aside a single judge's order refusing to transfer its application for judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision to a panel of the Divisional Court.

The underlying Small Claims Court claim was for less than $2,500, meaning no statutory right of appeal existed.

The Divisional Court panel held that while it has jurisdiction to judicially review Small Claims Court decisions, it retains discretion to refuse relief.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding the application was a disguised appeal and a frivolous use of court resources.

The landlord brought an unsuccessful motion to quash the tenants' appeal from an eviction order.

The tenants sought costs of the motion.

The court found that the landlord acted unreasonably by pursuing the motion when it knew the eviction order was based on the false premise that the tenants' complaints to government officials were unfounded.

The court awarded costs to the tenants in the amount of $17,337.71, reflecting the actual hourly rates charged by their counsel, which were lower than the maximum partial indemnity rates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his housing provider, primarily regarding a refusal to provide a larger apartment to accommodate his exercise equipment.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident occurred in 2009, five years before the application was filed.

The applicant's explanations for the delay, including conducting legal research, waiting for a Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding to conclude, and medical issues, did not constitute good faith reasons for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging housing discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to provide further particulars of his allegations.

The applicant failed to meet the deadline but requested an extension due to medical reasons, later providing a medical note indicating he was cleared to use his computer.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time, ordering the applicant to provide the required particulars by a new deadline, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The landlord moved to quash the tenants' appeal of an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the Board Member demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and made palpable errors of fact by ignoring a Fire Marshall's email confirming fire code deficiencies.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' appeal raised legitimate questions of law regarding both bias and palpable errors of fact.

The landlord's motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars of the applicant's allegations of discrimination and reprisal in housing.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient details regarding the alleged events, including who was involved, when they occurred, and where they happened.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars within a specified timeframe, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.