Milé Komlen

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that denied their request for an extension of time to review a consent eviction order.

The Divisional Court issued a notice that the appeal may be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the notice of appeal failed to identify any questions of law, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants did not file responding submissions.

The court dismissed the appeal, lifted the automatic stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to find the defendant, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, in civil contempt of two prior court orders regarding a disputed family home.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of constructive trust, resulting trust, and abuse.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the specific terms of the first order due to illiteracy in English and her former counsel's failure to inform her, and declined to exercise its discretion to find contempt on the second order.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, concluding that the intertwined issues of property ownership, alleged gifts, and historical abuse presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent and ordering him to pay $25,000 in arrears.

The tenant argued he owed no rent because the landlord had abandoned the property for six years, failed to maintain it, and that the claim was barred by laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly limited the tenant's repair claims to a one-year period under the Residential Tenancies Act and correctly held that the equitable doctrine of laches does not apply to statutory claims for rent arrears, which have no limitation period.

The plaintiffs, who had resided in the property for over 25 years, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant property owner from interfering with their use of the home pending the resolution of their constructive trust claim.

The defendant had previously attempted to evict the plaintiffs and breached an interim order by attending the property.

The court applied the three-part test for an injunction and found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if evicted and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The applicant, a former part-time district supervisor, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

He claimed the union treated part-time supervisors unfairly by agreeing to a reclassification that reduced their hourly rate and by failing to secure enhanced severance pay when their jobs were contracted out.

He also complained that the union refused to process his grievances regarding the reclassification, scheduling, and severance pay.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union made a difficult but justifiable collective bargaining decision to save part-time positions and that its refusal to process the grievances was based on a reasoned legal opinion, not arbitrary or bad faith conduct.