Matthew Helfand

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The respondent landlord (One Clarendon Inc.) sought costs for a motion to quash an appeal and an adjournment, which the appellants (Kathleen and John Finlay, tenants) had abandoned.

The tenants had appealed an interim order from the Superior Court compelling them to pay ongoing rent and arrears.

The Court of Appeal awarded partial indemnity costs to the landlord, noting that while the tenants' conduct appeared abusive, the issue of full indemnity costs was better addressed in the context of the Superior Court trial.

The landlord brought a motion for an interim order requiring the tenants to pay ongoing rent and outstanding arrears of $70,200 pending the final adjudication of the landlord's claim and the tenants' counterclaim for an abatement.

The tenants agreed to pay ongoing rent but argued they should not have to pay the arrears until the matter was resolved.

The court held that tenants are not entitled to unilaterally abate rent prior to a decision on the merits.

The court ordered the tenants to pay ongoing rent and to pay the arrears in six monthly instalments, with 50% of the payments to be held in trust by the landlord's counsel pending final determination.

The plaintiff landlord brought an interim motion for the payment of rent pending the hearing of its action to evict the defendant tenants and recover arrears.

The self-represented tenants requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing severe respiratory illness supported by doctors' notes.

Despite concerns about the tenants' history of delay tactics, the court reluctantly granted a brief, peremptory adjournment, ordering the tenants to pay $4,006.00 in partial rent prior to the return date.

The appellant tenants, who own homes on land leased from the respondent, challenged occupancy limitations in their long-term leases.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applied and that the limitations were a substantial interference.

The Divisional Court reversed, holding that s. 22 of the Act did not invalidate agreed-upon provisions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding that the occupancy limitations were inconsistent with the Act's scheme of security of tenure and were therefore void under s. 4, regardless of the parties' agreement.