6 total
Tenant's appeal of eviction for permitting drug trafficking in rental unit dismissed.
The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for permitting illegal acts, specifically drug trafficking, in his unit.
The tenant argued the Board's reasons were defective and failed to consider relief from forfeiture.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons were sufficient, supported by ample evidence of drugs and weapons in the unit, and that the Board properly considered and rejected relief from forfeiture due to the risk posed to other residents.
Appeal dismissed; tenant's civil action for wrongful eviction was an abuse of process following LTB decision.
The appellant tenant was evicted and his belongings disposed of while he was out of the country, due to a rent arrears dispute arising from a prematurely deposited post-dated cheque.
After the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) upheld the eviction and found no illegal conduct by the landlords, the appellant sued the landlords in Superior Court for damages.
The motion judge struck the statement of claim as an abuse of process because the issues had already been decided by the LTB.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the LTB had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and the proper route was to appeal the LTB decision to the Divisional Court.
Rent abatements under the Residential Tenancies Act are limited to the one-year period preceding the application.
The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the tenant a rent abatement for water damage extending back more than one year prior to the tenant's application.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 29(2) and s. 30(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Board only has jurisdiction to award a rent abatement for breaches occurring within the one-year limitation period preceding the application.
Appeal from Landlord and Tenant Board dismissed; appellant found to be an unauthorized occupant.
The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding he was not an authorized occupant or tenant of a Toronto Community Housing Corporation unit.
The appellant alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, spousal status, and disability, as well as bias by the Board Member.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was fully supported by the evidence, there was no discrimination or bias, and the appeal improperly raised factual issues rather than questions of law.
Human rights application dismissed; tenant representative's removal was due to inappropriate behaviour, not discrimination.
The applicant, a tenant and elected tenant representative in a social housing complex, alleged that the respondent housing corporation discriminated against him on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability.
He claimed he was treated as a subordinate, excluded from responsibilities, and ultimately removed from his position for discriminatory reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence unreliable and preferring the respondent's evidence.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's removal as a tenant representative was due to his own inappropriate and disruptive behaviour, including an incident where he entered restricted staff offices without permission, rather than any discriminatory animus.
Tribunal allows amendments to human rights application but denies requests for non-existent demographic data.
The applicant, a tenant, alleged discrimination by his landlord and another tenant on various grounds.
Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed multiple requests for orders.
The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests to amend the application to add paragraphs to the remedy section and to include allegations of systemic discrimination, finding no prejudice to the respondents.
However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's requests for the production of numerical data regarding the racial and religious characteristics of tenants and for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry on the same topic, as the requested data did not exist and would not assist in adjudicating the application.
