Landlord and Tenant - OCJ

The accused was charged with assault arising from an incident in which he pushed the property owner (his landlord) out of his rental unit.

The landlord attended the property with plumbers to investigate a water leak.

The accused claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found that the accused had peaceable possession of the property and acted with a defensive purpose, it concluded that the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The threat posed by the landlord was negligible, and the accused should have attempted verbal communication before resorting to physical force.

The court found the accused guilty of assault.

The defendants, as registered owners of a residential property in Brampton, were charged with two offences: (1) using or permitting the use of lands for purposes not permitted by the City of Brampton Zoning By-law by establishing an illegal second dwelling unit in their basement, contrary to the Planning Act; and (2) failing to register their two-unit house with the City of Brampton as required by the Second Unit Registration By-law.

The court found that the defendants had established a self-contained basement apartment with separate kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping areas, which constituted a second unit.

The prosecution was not required to prove the existence of a tenant or a stove in the basement kitchen to establish the existence of a second unit.

The defendants were convicted on both counts.

The applicant social housing provider sought access to youth criminal records relating to a young person whose charges had been stayed.

The applicant intended to use the records to commence eviction proceedings against the young person's family based on an alleged illegal act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant had a valid interest in the records, granting access was not desirable in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

The court emphasized the young person's heightened privacy rights, the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, and the potential harm to the young person's rehabilitation and family support if eviction proceedings were facilitated.

Toronto Community Housing Corporation sought access to youth court records of a tenant to use in eviction proceedings under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court addressed a procedural "chicken and egg" problem: TCHC needed information about the youth proceedings to determine which statutory test applied for access, but could not access records without first establishing the applicable test.

The court adopted a bifurcated approach, initially obtaining and reviewing the Information to provide counsel with necessary details.

The court also addressed the novel issue of whether notice should be given to the young person despite no statutory requirement under section 119(1)(s)(ii) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, finding that notice was desirable in the interests of justice given the serious consequences of potential eviction and the rehabilitative purposes of youth justice legislation.

The defendant was charged with two counts under the Residential Tenancies Act: knowingly threatening or interfering with a tenant to induce her to vacate, and knowingly interfering with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the premises.

The tenant complained of water damage, mould, pest infestations, and power interruptions during her tenancy.

The court found that the defendant's letter demanding the tenant vacate was a demand letter rather than a threat, and dismissed the first count.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of the second count, determining that the ongoing water damage problem constituted an interference with reasonable enjoyment, and that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in addressing the issue despite knowing it persisted.

The defendant landlord was charged under the Building Code Act for alterations made to a commercial unit by a tenant without a permit, and for failing to comply with a subsequent order.

The court held that the statutory language prohibiting a person from 'causing' construction without a permit did not apply to the landlord, who had no knowledge of the alterations and whose lease expressly forbade unauthorized construction.

Furthermore, the court found that even if the Act applied, the landlord established a defence of due diligence by promptly directing the tenant to obtain a permit and assisting in the process once notified of the violation.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.