Landlord and Tenant - OCA

The appellant landlord appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim for prospective rent after terminating a commercial lease for the tenant's default.

The motion judge interpreted the lease as limiting the landlord's recovery upon termination to arrears and a fixed penalty, finding that the lease's reference to "any other remedies available at law or in equity" did not preserve a right to prospective damages that was explicitly precluded later in the same provision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error, and dismissed the appellant's additional claims for pool removal costs, maintenance expenses, and costs on the motion below.

The appellant, a coalition of landlords, appealed the dismissal of its application to quash a municipal residential rental licensing by-law enacted as a pilot project.

The appellant argued the by-law was arbitrary, enacted in bad faith, and ultra vires due to alleged violations of the Charter, the Residential Tenancies Act, and privacy legislation.

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review to municipal decisions and found the by-law was passed in good faith for valid health and safety purposes.

The court dismissed all constitutional and statutory challenges, concluding the by-law did not restrict marketing, permit unlawful entry, interfere with subletting, encroach on criminal law powers, or require disclosure of protected personal information.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs, which were reduced to reflect a lack of success on a residential tenancy issue.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 for the appeal and $15,000 for the application, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant landlord and respondent tenants entered into a residential occupancy agreement and an option to purchase agreement.

The respondent attempted to exercise the option to purchase, but the notice was late and did not include the required deposit.

The parties subsequently entered into a new agreement of purchase and sale at a higher price, which the respondent failed to close.

The application judge found the respondent had substantially complied with the option agreement and dismissed the landlord's application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the option agreement required strict compliance due to 'time is of the essence' and non-waiver clauses.

The Court ordered the forfeiture of the majority of the deposit but declined to issue a writ of possession, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the residential tenancy.

The Attorney General for Ontario moved to quash an appeal from an order dismissing a motion for an interim stay of the Chief Justice's order ending the COVID-19 eviction moratorium.

The appellants argued the order was final because it effectively determined their case was not justiciable and disposed of their substantive rights.

The Court of Appeal held that an order refusing a stay is interlocutory, as the merits of the underlying motion to set aside the Chief Justice's order remained to be determined.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving parties sought an expedited appeal of an order dismissing their motion for an urgent stay of a previous order that ended the moratorium on residential evictions in Ontario.

The Attorney General indicated an intention to bring a motion to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion judge directed that the motion to quash be heard in writing on an expedited basis, and adjourned the request for an expedited appeal to the panel hearing the motion to quash.

The appellant tenant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for deferred rent owed to the respondent landlord.

The parties had agreed to defer rent payments until the appellant settled a lawsuit with a third party.

The appellant argued there was no agreement and that a release signed in a prior small claims action barred the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a clear contract existed and that the general release did not cover the contingent loan for deferred rent.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision finding it had not validly exercised its option to renew a commercial lease and denying relief from forfeiture.

The tenant argued the landlord waived the requirement for written notice of renewal through email negotiations about rent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the landlord did not waive strict compliance with the renewal provision and that the tenant's conduct—including hedging its bets on renewal and paying rent late—did not warrant equitable relief from forfeiture.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the respondents following trial.

The core issue was whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit the appellant to amend his pleadings during trial to assert a claim in negligence.

The appellant had originally pleaded claims for assault and breach of the Residential Tenancies Act but abandoned these during trial, seeking instead to amend to plead negligence relating to the loss of his pet cat.

The trial judge refused the amendment, finding it would constitute a new cause of action that was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the original pleading did not contain sufficient material facts to support a negligence claim and that the proposed amendment sought to introduce new material facts rather than merely clarify or provide alternative relief based on facts already pleaded.

The appellant tenants appealed a decision denying them a rent abatement after their apartment building's elevator was out of service for 96 days due to a latent defect.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had acted diligently and reasonably in maintaining the elevator and replacing it, and thus did not breach its duty to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's contextual interpretation of s. 20(1), which considered the reasonableness of the landlord's actions, was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action against her former co-operative housing provider, its lawyers, a court employee, and a Landlord and Tenant Board member.

The motion judge had dismissed the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the action was an attempt to re-litigate her eviction and rent subsidy proceedings, and that the claims against the lawyers, court employee, and Board member were bound to fail due to lack of duty of care and statutory immunity.

The moving party sought to review and set aside an order refusing to extend the time to have a single judge's decision reviewed by a panel of the Court of Appeal.

The underlying dispute involved the termination of the moving party's membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative due to unpaid housing charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, agreeing with previous judges that the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.

The moving party sought to review a single judge's decision refusing an extension of time to review an earlier order that denied a stay of her eviction.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the refusal, noting the unexplained delay and that the matter was moot since the eviction had already occurred.

The motion was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The appellant slipped and fell on ice and snow on the driveway of a rented residential property.

He sued the landlord and later added the tenant as a co-defendant.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against both defendants.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the tenant, finding the claim was statute-barred because the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that he discovered his claim on the date of the accident.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the landlord, finding genuine issues for trial concerning the interplay between the lease terms, the Occupiers' Liability Act, and the landlord's maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant tenant appealed a trial judgment finding he failed to pay rent and that the landlord's distraint, which included changing the locks, did not constitute a forfeiture of the lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidentiary record and that changing the locks does not alone render an otherwise lawful distraint a forfeiture.

The tenant appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside a default judgment obtained by the landlord respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision because the appellants failed to provide affidavit evidence explaining their delay in responding to the Statement of Claim or establishing a plausible defence.

The court noted the respondent's undertaking to credit the appellants for any re-rental amounts received and directed that the final judgment be adjusted accordingly.

The appellant tenant leased a house and undertook extensive unauthorized renovations.

After defaulting on rent, the landlord sought eviction and arrears, while the tenant sued for the value of the renovations.

The trial judge dismissed the tenant's claims and allowed the landlord's counterclaim via a summary/hybrid trial.

On appeal, the tenant argued the trial judge erred in using the summary procedure, restricting his viva voce evidence, and denying an adjournment for an expert report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's case management, evidentiary rulings, or refusal to grant an adjournment.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against his former landlord for unlawful eviction.

The appellant also moved to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the materials were available during the original motion.

The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the action was an attempt to re-litigate issues previously decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board, Divisional Court, and Small Claims Court, and that the matters fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant sub-tenant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $18,060.42 in realty tax arrears to the respondent Township.

The appellant argued that the sublease did not permit retroactive tax collection, that the Township lacked authority to sue for the arrears, and that the claim was barred by the doctrine of laches.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sublease clearly made the appellant responsible for all applicable realty taxes, the Township sued properly under the contract, and the delay in assessment was caused by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation rather than the Township.

The appellant landlord appealed the dismissal of its action for unpaid rent against the respondent commercial tenants.

The trial judge had dismissed the action on the basis that the landlord forfeited its right to sue for rent by re-entering the premises before the 15-day statutory period expired under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to consider whether the premises had been abandoned, which would allow immediate re-entry without prejudicing the claim for rent.

A trial of an issue was ordered to determine the application of the Act, including the issue of abandonment.