Mukta Batra

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that found the landlord did not unreasonably refuse to assign their lease to a family of five.

The LTB member had explicitly refused to consider whether the landlord's occupancy limits discriminated against the proposed assignees on the basis of family status under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB committed a serious error of law by failing to apply the Code when interpreting whether the refusal was 'arbitrary or unreasonable' under s. 95(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court articulated an adapted Moore test for assessing discrimination in lease assignments and remitted the matter to the LTB for a re-hearing.

This judgment addresses two consolidated applications: one by Elizabeth Dobis, Estate Trustee, seeking damages and costs from Mark Dobis for misappropriated estate funds, and another by Mark Dobis to pass accounts.

The court found that Mark Dobis had misappropriated funds and ordered him to pay $20,932.24 in damages to the Estate.

The court denied Mark Dobis's request for set-off against potential future claims for dependent's support or unjust enrichment, citing lack of equitable grounds and unliquidated claims.

Mark Dobis's accounts were passed, with the objection resolved by the damages award.

Elizabeth Dobis was also awarded costs totaling $17,100 for her application and $2,100 for a contempt motion that prompted Mark Dobis to comply with a prior order to pass accounts.

The appellant contractor appealed a decision dismissing its construction lien action against the respondent homeowners.

The appellant had performed emergency plumbing and remediation work, billed an excessive amount, left the work unfinished, and used a fake law firm to threaten the homeowners.

The Associate Justice dismissed the lien, contract, and quantum meruit claims because the appellant was not the contracting party, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that allowing the appellant to misuse the legal process in furtherance of a deceptive scheme would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Member, a Vice-Principal, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct after allowing a student to host a party at his residence where underage drinking and marijuana use occurred.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a member.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand and required the Member to complete coursework on professional ethics and boundaries.