Martin P. Zarnett

The tenant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering eviction for persistent late payment of rent.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in law by relying on incorrect figures, applying the wrong test under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and breaching procedural fairness by correcting clerical errors in the decision without notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding that the LTB properly corrected the clerical errors under its rules, considered all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction, and made no reviewable errors of law or procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction.

The landlord sought termination on the grounds that the tenant committed an illegal act and seriously impaired the safety of others by pointing a replica gun at a landlord representative and another tenant.

At the LTB hearing, the tenant admitted the facts and testified that he pled guilty to a lesser criminal offence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the LTB's conclusions that the tenant's conduct constituted an illegal act and seriously impaired the safety of others.

The stay of eviction was lifted.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding she persistently paid rent late and ordering her to pay rent in full and on time for a year.

The tenant argued she paid partial rent on time because she was disputing a rent increase and self-abating.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Residential Tenancies Act, rent means the entire amount due, and any shortfall constitutes late payment.

The Court confirmed that tenants are not permitted to self-abate rent and must pay in full pending LTB adjudication of any abatement claims.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending appeal.

The court had previously imposed conditions on the stay, requiring the tenant to pay monthly rent and specific amounts towards arrears.

The landlord provided evidence that the tenant failed to make the required payment for arrears and had not paid rent since August 2024.

The tenant did not respond to the motion.

The court accepted the landlord's evidence, lifted the stay, and permitted the sheriff to enforce the eviction order.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction due to his cigarette smoking substantially interfering with another tenant's reasonable enjoyment.

The appellant argued procedural fairness violations, including the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, and that the Board erred in not granting relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 83 was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

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 tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy and ordering eviction for persistently paying rent late.

The tenant argued the Board failed to consider his reasons for late payment, discriminated against him, and denied him procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's arguments primarily raised questions of fact, which are not appealable under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness and awarded $2,500 in costs to the landlord.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction for persistently failing to pay rent on time.

The tenant argued the LTB was procedurally unfair in scheduling the landlord's applications before her own and erred in law by not excusing her deliberate withholding of rent due to maintenance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's scheduling was a discretionary matter that did not breach procedural fairness.

The Court further held that persistent late payment is a factual finding not subject to appeal, and the LTB properly considered the tenant's circumstances when declining to grant relief from eviction under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that resulted in her eviction for rent arrears.

The eviction was executed by the Sheriff before a stay was in place, and the landlord subsequently re-rented the unit to a new tenant.

The Divisional Court held that it could not restore the tenant to the unit or order the landlord to provide a different unit.

The court also dismissed the tenant's arguments regarding multiplicity of proceedings, issue estoppel, loss of jurisdiction, and procedural fairness, finding that the LTB's distinct processes for persistent late payment and non-payment of rent were appropriate and fair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy on the basis of fraud.

The tenant obtained an automatic stay of the eviction order upon filing the appeal.

The court directed the tenant to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed as an abuse of process, given the LTB's finding of fraud and the tenant's failure to pay rent, resulting in over $71,000 in arrears.

Finding that the tenant failed to raise an appealable issue and was using the appeal process to perpetuate the fraud and avoid paying rent, the court lifted the stay and summarily dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her family following an altercation with the building superintendent over a clogged sink.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board made several errors of law.

Specifically, the Board failed to consider whether the tenant 'permitted' the illegal act (spitting) under s. 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, improperly speculated about future risk under s. 66(1), and failed to consider all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction under s. 83.

The eviction order was set aside and the landlord's applications were dismissed.

A landlord sought leave to bring an urgent motion for directions to enforce an eviction order against tenants, despite a province-wide moratorium on evictions due to a public health emergency.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously ordered eviction based on a finding that a tenant committed a serious illegal act within the residential complex.

The court, acting as delegate of the Regional Senior Justice, found the matter urgent and granted leave for the landlord to bring the motion for directions, emphasizing the time-sensitive nature and potential interests of vulnerable third parties.

The self-represented tenants appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board decisions that dismissed their applications for substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The Board had found the tenants deliberately used the wrong form (T2 instead of T6) to characterize maintenance issues as substantial interference.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Board's findings regarding the forms and its procedural decisions were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's decision to convert an oral hearing into a written one to accommodate the tenants' language barriers.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appellant tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for rent arrears.

The court found that the tenant's notice of appeal raised only factual issues regarding his personal and financial circumstances, failing to raise a question of law as required by s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court concluded the appeal was devoid of merit, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The motion was granted, the appeal was dismissed, and the automatic stay of eviction was lifted.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for lack of jurisdiction.

The appeal, concerning rent arrears and eviction, raised only factual matters, not questions of law as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found the appeal devoid of merit, frivolous, vexatious, and an an abuse of process, granting the motion, dismissing the appeal, and lifting the automatic stay of the eviction order.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy and requiring them to pay $24,351.50 for mould damage.

The Board found the appellants negligently caused the mould by maintaining a hot and humid environment despite warnings from the landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the damage was reasonably foreseeable and that the Board's reasons were adequate.

McDonald's appealed a Superior Court decision that terminated a commercial ground lease due to McDonald's failure to comply with the renewal provision.

The application judge found that because the parties had not agreed on a rental rate at least nine months before the lease expiry, McDonald's was obliged to either refer the matter to arbitration or revoke its renewal notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in concluding that North Elgin had properly revoked its waiver of strict compliance with the renewal provision.

The court held that the revocation lacked sufficient clarity and did not provide McDonald's with reasonable notice or an opportunity to cure the defect.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction after her sons were arrested in the unit for possessing an illegal handgun and drugs.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness when the Board proceeded with the hearing in her absence after she left to seek medical attention for a toothache without waiting for a ruling on her adjournment request.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice in proceeding in her absence and no error in the Board's conclusion that possessing an illegal handgun impaired the safety and reasonable enjoyment of other tenants.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying its request to review a rent abatement order made in its absence.

The landlord claimed it did not receive the notice of hearing or the order.

The Board found this unlikely, as the documents were mailed to the correct corporate address and not returned, inferring a lack of diligence by the landlord's head office staff.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's factual finding of lack of diligence was supported by evidence and did not constitute an error of law.

The applicant alleged discrimination in accommodation on the basis of ethnic origin, citizenship, and marital status after her rental application was denied and she was removed from her ex-spouse's rental unit by police.

The Tribunal found that the respondent denied the rental application for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including unstable employment, poor credit, and lack of rental history.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's actions in changing the locks and having the applicant removed were driven by the need to secure vacant possession for new tenants, not by discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.