Nicola Mulima

The applicants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting an eviction order for non-payment of rent exceeding $20,000.

The applicants failed to file required court documents, failed to serve a notice of constitutional question, and failed to comply with an interim stay order requiring rental payments.

At the hearing, the attending applicant advanced pseudolegal arguments regarding his identity as a private beneficial owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to comply with directions and failed to show the application should be granted on the merits.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court previously lifted the stay of eviction due to the tenant's failure to pay rent and arrears.

The tenant subsequently failed to file appeal materials or advise the court of his intention to pursue the appeal within the directed timeframe.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for delay and non-compliance with court directions.

The appellant tenant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for the landlords' family use.

She argued that her paralegal provided ineffective assistance by conceding the landlords' good faith without her instructions.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to raise the ineffective assistance issue before the LTB in a timely manner.

The majority further held that in civil proceedings, the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim against the representative, not the reversal of a valid administrative decision, and declined to extend the criminal law doctrine to this context.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction due to his cigarette smoking substantially interfering with another tenant's reasonable enjoyment.

The appellant argued procedural fairness violations, including the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, and that the Board erred in not granting relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 83 was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

The landlord brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board consent eviction order as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The tenant had accumulated significant rent arrears and failed to make payments under a negotiated schedule.

The tenant appealed the consent order, claiming economic duress and good faith efforts to secure funds.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the claim of duress lacked merit.

The court concluded the appeal was issued solely to allow the tenant to remain in the premises rent-free, and dismissed the appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision upholding their eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit late medical evidence regarding their disability at a second review hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board provided a high degree of procedural fairness by granting multiple adjournments and a second review hearing, and the Member properly exercised discretion in excluding the late evidence.

The Court also noted that even if the appeal succeeded, the tenant could not be restored to the unit as it had been lawfully re-rented to an arm's-length party.

The appellant, a 48-year tenant, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for failing to comply with a conditional payment plan for rental arrears, as well as an order denying her request for a review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not err in law by refusing to consider post-hearing evidence explaining her non-compliance, nor did it breach procedural fairness by denying the review without an oral hearing.

The court held that the Board's decision not to grant relief from eviction was a question of mixed fact and law, which could not be appealed.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and seeking compensation for mold damage.

The Board had found the landlord failed to prove the tenant caused the mold and granted the tenant a rent abatement for inadequate ventilation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Board misstated the legal test for causation in its conclusion, the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the Board's factual finding that the tenant did not cause the mold was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her for failing to maintain the cleanliness of her rental unit.

The tenant argued the Board erred by failing to consider the landlord's failure to repair her refrigerator, which she claimed forced her to store food in her bathtub.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant did not exercise diligence in pursuing the appeal and failed to raise a genuine question of law under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, as her proposed appeal merely challenged the Board's factual findings and weighing of evidence.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy so the respondent landlord's daughter could move in.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because her evidence was rushed and the landlord's daughter was permitted to assist the landlord at the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB member reasonably controlled the process and established a fair procedure for the daughter's participation.

The court also noted that challenges to factual findings are not permitted on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal from a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy for rent arrears.

The court applied the factors for granting an extension of time, noting the tenant's history of non-payment, the significant arrears, and the lack of apparent merit in the proposed grounds of appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant sought to appeal an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant was evicted for violating an agreement to maintain the cleanliness of her unit and filed her appeal months late.

The Divisional Court provided procedural directions, explaining that the court can only hear appeals on questions of law and setting a timetable for the appellant to bring a motion for an extension of time to appeal.