Martin P. Zarnett

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenant a $10,000 rent abatement for harassment and interference with parking.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of harassment, noting the landlord's threats to report the tenant to social assistance.

However, the court found no evidence to support the finding of parking interference, as the tenant chose to park in an unassigned spot.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the rent abatement was reduced to $6,500.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissing his application against the landlord for harassment and coercion.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application on a non-suit motion by the landlord's agent, finding the tenant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the tenant was denied procedural fairness and natural justice because he was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the non-suit motion or call his remaining witnesses.

The Court also found the Tribunal Member misapprehended the evidence regarding intimidation and failed to control the abusive conduct of the landlord's agent.

The Tribunal's order was quashed and a new hearing directed.

The tenants appealed an eviction order issued by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal after the male tenant verbally assaulted and threatened the building superintendents while intoxicated.

The tenants argued the Tribunal erred by admitting an unsworn statement from a witness who was not summoned to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no defect in the notice of termination and holding that the unsworn statement was admissible at the Tribunal's discretion under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tenant Protection Act.

The appellants appealed a judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion that the bank was entitled to judgment.

However, based on fresh evidence admitted on consent, the court varied the judgment amount to $101,941.26.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs.

The tenant brought a motion to vary an order that set conditions for his appeal, specifically the requirement to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent.

The tenant had not paid any arrears and his appeal had previously been dismissed for non-compliance.

As the tenant continued to refuse to pay the arrears he admitted were owing, the Divisional Court found no merit in the motion and dismissed it, awarding costs to the landlord.

The appellant tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence was readily available at the time of the original hearing and that the tenant had chosen not to call available witnesses.

Furthermore, the court held that the fresh evidence would not have been conclusive of the issue, applying the test from Sengmueller v. Sengmueller.

The landlord moved for an order requiring the tenant to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent into court pending the tenant's appeal of a tribunal order.

The tenant had received a 5% rent abatement but appealed seeking a further 5%, while conceding that rent was owing and withholding payment.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding it unjust for the tenant to remain in possession while arrears accumulated, and ordered the tenant to pay the arrears and ongoing rent into court, failing which the stay would be lifted and the appeal quashed.