Martin P. Zarnett

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering eviction for breaching a prior conditional order.

The prior order granted relief from eviction on the condition that the tenant not exhibit conduct substantially interfering with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment, such as making profane comments.

The Board found the tenant breached this condition by swearing at the superintendent and subsequently yelling at and insulting the superintendent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and the tenant raised no questions of law.

This case involved two applications concerning the renewal of a twenty-year ground lease between a landlord, North Elgin Centre Inc., and its tenant, McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited.

McDonald's had given notice to renew but failed to either revoke its intention or elect arbitration within the stipulated nine-month period when rent negotiations stalled.

The landlord sought a declaration that the lease was terminated due to McDonald's non-compliance with the renewal provision.

McDonald's sought a declaration that the lease was renewed and an order for arbitration.

The court found that McDonald's did not strictly comply with the renewal provision.

While the landlord's conduct initially constituted a waiver of strict compliance, this waiver was effectively revoked by clear communication.

McDonald's subsequently failed to elect arbitration within a reasonable time and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The court granted the landlord's application, declaring the lease terminated, and dismissed McDonald's application.

A 90-day stay of judgment was granted.

The tenant and occupant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy on the basis that the tenant illegally transferred possession of the unit to his sister.

The Divisional Court found the Board erred in law by assuming a person can only have one residence and failing to properly apply the test for transfer of occupancy under s. 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's order was set aside, and the landlord's application was dismissed.

The moving party, an elderly tenant with health challenges, brought an emergency motion to stay an eviction order obtained by the respondent housing corporation for rent arrears.

Despite being served with notice of the motion, the respondent and the sheriff executed the eviction.

The court retroactively stayed the eviction after finding the tenant had paid the outstanding amount under the Landlord and Tenant Board order.

The court maintained the stay for 45 days to allow the tenant to address ongoing rent arrears, which were disputed due to being calculated on a double-occupancy basis despite the tenant living alone.

The elderly tenant faced eviction for unpaid rent.

Her daughter brought an emergency motion to stay the eviction and paid the outstanding amount ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Despite being served with notice of the motion, the landlord and sheriff executed the eviction.

The court granted a retroactive stay, finding the outstanding amount was paid prior to the eviction taking place, and maintained the stay for 45 days to allow the parties to resolve the ongoing rent dispute.

The appellant tenant commenced an application for a declaration of a valid lease after the respondent landlord terminated the tenancy and took possession of the premises.

Three years later, the appellant moved to direct a trial of the issues and amend its pleadings to claim damages for wrongful termination and loss of inventory.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments raised new causes of action that were statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proposed damages claim was an alternative remedy arising from the same factual nexus originally pleaded in the application and supporting affidavit, and therefore did not constitute a new cause of action.

The applicant, a tenant in social housing, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and receipt of public assistance.

He alleged that the building superintendent and management engaged in surveillance and harassment, including using secret cameras and recruiting other residents to follow him.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations lacked an air of reality and the applicant provided no evidence beyond mere speculation to link the alleged incidents to any Code grounds.

The self-represented tenant moved for a six-month extension of time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal a Superior Court order and her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The landlord opposed, citing extensive delays and previous extensions.

Applying the test for extending time, the Divisional Court found that while the delay was significant, the tenant's difficult personal circumstances and the lack of severe prejudice to the landlord justified a final extension.

The court granted an extension to September 1, 2016, but dismissed the tenant's requests for consolidation and case management.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided notice to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her for repeatedly denying the landlord access to her rental unit to take photographs for the purpose of selling the property.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by finding that section 27(1)(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act permitted entry for this purpose.

The Court concluded that absent a specific term in the lease or the tenant's consent, a landlord has no statutory authority to enter a rental unit to take photographs for marketing purposes, as doing so infringes on the tenant's privacy interests.

The eviction order was set aside.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending appeal, or alternatively for an order requiring the appellant tenant to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent.

The tenant had not paid rent since the LTB order but expressed willingness to pay the arrears into court.

The Divisional Court declined to lift the stay but ordered the tenant to pay the LTB order amount, accumulated arrears, and ongoing monthly rent into court pursuant to section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also imposed a strict timetable for the tenant to perfect the appeal, failing which the appeal would be dismissed and the stay lifted.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application to evict a tenant who had smoked in his unit for 22 years.

A neighbouring tenant had vacated due to the cigarette smoke and odour, which the landlord was unable to remedy despite various efforts.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to consider the landlord's ongoing statutory obligation under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the complex fit for habitation for future tenants.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a re-hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application to evict the respondent tenant for late payment of rent.

The tenant had paid rent late eleven times over a twelve-month period, but had a ten-year history of paying on time prior to that.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's interpretation of 'persistently' and its exercise of discretion to refuse eviction without imposing conditions were reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against his former landlord for unlawful eviction.

The appellant also moved to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the materials were available during the original motion.

The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the action was an attempt to re-litigate issues previously decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board, Divisional Court, and Small Claims Court, and that the matters fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant, a residential tenant, sued her landlord in Small Claims Court for negligence after her unit was burglarized via an adjacent unlocked unit.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the action, finding the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, confirming that the claim essentially alleged a breach of the landlord's statutory obligations regarding safety and quiet enjoyment.

The court also refused to transfer the matter to the Superior Court, as the one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act had already expired when the Small Claims action was commenced.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court.

The court found that the appeal raised no question of law, as required by section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and that the tenants were merely seeking to re-try the case.

The court also dismissed the tenants' allegation of bias, noting that disagreement with the Tribunal's factual findings does not constitute bias.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,000.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy after the Board found he had assaulted the building superintendent.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by failing to consider his personal circumstances, including his lack of a criminal record, financial situation, and ties to the community, as required by section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant had adduced little to no evidence on these factors before the Board, and the Board had properly considered section 83 based on the evidentiary record before it.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had fallen into arrears after a social housing agency discontinued paying its portion of the rent, a decision the tenant was challenging via judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the accumulation of rental arrears did not constitute demonstrable and unusual hardship for the landlord.

Furthermore, lifting the stay would likely render the tenant homeless and remove his incentive to pursue the judicial review, which could ultimately result in the arrears being paid.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a related Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) proceeding.

Although the LTB had issued a final order, the respondent appealed that order to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the LTB issues had not been completely resolved due to the pending appeal, and extended the deferral until the conclusion of the appeal process.

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

The tenant had previously failed to comply with conditions of an adjournment, resulting in the lifting of a stay of eviction and the tenant vacating the unit.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding it was not so clearly devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal without a hearing.

However, the court ordered the tenant to perfect the appeal by a specified date, failing which it would be dismissed, and awarded costs of $2,500 to the landlord.