Michael Karl Edgar Thiele

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order that dismissed the action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff had abandoned the action and that reinstatement would be prejudicial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding an adequate explanation for the litigation delay (counsel's illness), inadvertence in missing the deadline, and that the motion to set aside was brought promptly.

While acknowledging presumptive prejudice due to the passage of time, the court applied a contextual approach, emphasizing the preference for resolving matters on their merits, especially when delay is due to counsel's error.

The action was allowed to proceed, and a timetable was ordered.

The landlord brought a motion regarding an eviction order against a tenant who had not paid rent for 18 months and owed over $28,000.

The appellant, an occupant of the leased premises but not the tenant, sought to maintain the stay of enforcement while the tenant was hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court ordered a strict payment schedule for arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of maintaining the stay of enforcement pending the appeal.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her.

The eviction was based on an application for causing serious problems and committing an illegal act by interfering with the hydro supply to her unit after it was disconnected for non-payment.

The Board found she or someone on her behalf cut the deadbolt off the protected hydro switch to restore electricity, creating an extreme danger.

The Divisional Court found no error of law in the Board's reliance on circumstantial evidence, noting she was the only one to benefit from the restored electricity.

The appeal was dismissed, but the eviction enforcement date was delayed.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the N5 notice of termination was void due to technical defects, specifically a missing bullet point and the inclusion of both repair and replacement costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the notice was compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act because a reasonable person would understand their options to void the notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation because of receipt of public assistance.

She sought an interim remedy to allow her to continue residing with her parents in the respondent co-op, contrary to its by-laws, and to prevent the respondent from penalizing her parents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's parents were not parties to the application, the reason for the request was unconnected to any Code ground, and there was no indication that the Tribunal would be unable to remedy any alleged breach if the applicant vacated the apartment.

A housing co‑operative applied for an order confirming termination of the respondents’ occupancy and for a writ of possession after persistent arrears and breaches of multiple performance agreements.

The respondents argued that a later performance agreement cancelled the eviction decision and raised hardship concerns relating to their family circumstances.

The court applied a reasonableness standard to the co‑operative board’s decision and held that the board reasonably determined the performance agreement required immediate payment of arrears and therefore never came into force when payment was delayed.

Given the respondents’ ongoing arrears and breaches, the board’s decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

No basis for judicial intervention on hardship grounds was established.