Landlord and Tenant - OCA

The moving party sought a panel review of a motion judge's decision denying a stay of a Divisional Court order that removed a stay of an eviction order.

The moving party had already been evicted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle or unreasonable result by the motion judge, and noting that the motion for a stay was moot.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed motions by tenants Michael Schram and Leslie Mitchell for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal regarding the termination of their tenancy and the dismissal of their action.

The court found that the proposed appeals lacked merit and that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The court also dismissed the request for a stay of eviction and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The appellant tenants, who own homes on land leased from the respondent, challenged occupancy limitations in their long-term leases.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applied and that the limitations were a substantial interference.

The Divisional Court reversed, holding that s. 22 of the Act did not invalidate agreed-upon provisions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding that the occupancy limitations were inconsistent with the Act's scheme of security of tenure and were therefore void under s. 4, regardless of the parties' agreement.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease termination provision, specifically whether proposed remodelling rendered continued possession by the tenant "impracticable." The motion judge had granted summary judgment to the landlord, finding the renovations bona fide and that the premises would cease to exist.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in construing the termination provision too narrowly and in isolation from other lease provisions, failing to consider whether the tenant could remain in possession during renovations.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment and costs order were set aside, and the action was remitted to the Superior Court for continuation.

Vista owned a shopping mall and leased space to Zellers, which operated a retail store.

Zellers notified Vista in February 2004 of its intention to cease operations in May 2004, although the lease did not terminate until April 2005.

Vista sued, claiming Zellers was obliged under "continuous use" clauses in the lease to operate until the lease ended.

The trial judge found that Zellers was entitled to close when it did, interpreting the continuous use obligation as qualified by the hours of operation clause.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the continuous use obligation in sections 8.01 and 8.05 was not overridden by the hours of operation clause in section 8.01.1, and that Zellers breached its obligation by closing prematurely.

The appellant landlord appealed a jury award of punitive damages arising from its continuing failure to maintain and repair the respondent's apartment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury properly identified an independent actionable wrong based on the landlord's highly reprehensible conduct.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was allowed, as the trial judge erred in failing to apply Rule 49.10 after the judgment exceeded the respondent's offer to settle.

The respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial and costs of the appeal.

The appellant landlord appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Tribunal order that sections 105(1) and 108 of the Tenant Protection Act apply to the respondents' land lease homes.

The landlord argued that applying these sections to permanent structures would lead to an absurd result, as they could not be sold without assigning the land lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sections apply to land lease communities and confirm a tenant's proprietary right to sell their home.

However, the Court clarified that while a landlord cannot refuse consent to an assignment in principle when a home is sold, the landlord retains the right under section 17 to reasonably withhold consent to a specific assignee.

The appellant landlord originally applied to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal under the Tenant Protection Act, claiming the respondent tenant breached the Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The appellant did not appeal but instead applied to the Superior Court for a declaration that the unit was a commercial tenancy.

The motions judge dismissed the application based on issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal implicitly decided the unit was residential and the appellant could not resile from its initial position relying on the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The landlord appealed the dismissal of its action for rent arrears against the tenants.

The trial judge had found that the landlord's demolition of a dilapidated barn and frame house on the 20-acre leased property constituted 'partial destruction of the premises' under the lease, thereby suspending the tenants' obligation to pay rent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge failed to interpret the lease as a whole to achieve a commercially sensible result.

The Court found that the term 'premises' in the destruction clause applied only to the private dwelling, and thus the demolition of the outbuildings did not suspend the rent obligation.

Judgment was granted for the total rent owing.