Landlord and Tenant - ODC

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 moving party landlord sought an order lifting the stay of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenancy was terminated due to substantial non-payment of rent.

The appeal was commenced by an individual who was not named as a tenant in the LTB proceedings.

The purported appellant failed to comply with a previous court direction to make monthly rent payments and payments towards the arrears.

The court granted the motion and lifted the stay, noting that a party cannot benefit from a stay while failing to pay rent and accumulating large arrears.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting them for non-payment of rent, arguing they were denied procedural fairness when the Board refused their adjournment request.

The tenants claimed the refusal prevented them from presenting repair invoices for set-off and from properly proposing a payment plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's refusal of the adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion.

The Court also held that the Board did not err in rejecting the proposed payment plan or in applying its disclosure rules to exclude the repair invoices.

Finally, the Court confirmed that the Board's monetary jurisdiction limit does not apply to the amount of arrears a tenant must pay to void an eviction order.

The appellants (tenant and spouse) appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision upholding an eviction order.

At a case conference, the tenant brought a motion to strike the landlord's cross-appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the cross-appeal raised a valid legal issue regarding the return of rent paid into trust.

The court also struck the tenant's spouse as a party appellant, noting he was not a tenant, and prohibited him from acting as her legal representative due to his inappropriate submissions.

Finally, the court ordered the tenant to pay ongoing rent and a portion of arrears as a condition of maintaining the stay of eviction pending appeal.

The appellant brought an unopposed motion for an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, extending the time to appeal to the date the Notice of Appeal was filed.

The court noted that the respondent will need to explain the apparent incongruity of its current position compared to its position before the Board.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board summarily rejecting her request for reconsideration of a consent eviction order.

The tenant argued that her mental health issues vitiated her consent and that the Vice Chair erred by deciding the reconsideration on its merits at the screening stage without an evidentiary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or denial of procedural fairness, as the tenant failed to provide sufficient information to support a preliminary finding of a serious error as required by the Board's rules.

The landlords brought a motion in writing to change the effective date of the dismissal of the tenant's appeal.

The court had previously dismissed the tenant's appeal for delay but provided a 45-day grace period for the eviction to take effect, conditional on the tenant keeping rent current.

The landlords filed evidence that the tenant failed to pay rent for May.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal effective immediately and lifted the stay of eviction to prevent an abuse of process.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application against her landlord for alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The tenant claimed the landlord failed to address noise complaints, improperly charged an NSF fee, and wrongfully deducted a filing fee from her rent credit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's decision, as the Board had properly considered the evidence and arguments before concluding the landlord had not breached the Act.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from an eviction order, arguing it was devoid of merit and an abuse of process.

During submissions on the tenant's request for an adjournment, the parties reached a resolution.

The court ordered the appeal dismissed as abandoned, subject to the tenant paying rent for June and July and vacating the unit by July 31, 2024.

The tenant was also ordered to pay $2,000 in costs to the landlord.

The self-represented tenants brought a motion to extend the time for serving and filing a motion to vary a previous order that lifted a stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting the tenants missed the deadline by almost a month without a reasonable explanation.

Furthermore, the court held that the tenants could not seek relief while remaining in breach of ongoing court orders to pay rent and outstanding arrears.

The landlord brought a motion in writing to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant breached a previous court direction requiring him to make a rental arrears payment of $1,400.00 to maintain the stay.

The tenant acknowledged the breach but cited undocumented medical issues as the reason.

The court found the tenant's excuses unpersuasive and lifted the stay of eviction, noting that the statutory stay is not intended to allow a tenant to live rent-free.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering eviction.

The respondent landlord sought to lift the stay of eviction pending the appeal, citing significant rent arrears of over $110,000 and delays in moving the appeal forward.

The tenant proposed a payment plan to pay $10,000 monthly and a lump sum of $25,000 to clear the arrears.

The court ordered that the stay of eviction would continue provided the tenant strictly complied with the proposed payment plan, failing which the stay would be lifted.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her from a residential unit for demolition purposes.

The tenant argued the Board erred by extending the time for the landlord to pay the required statutory compensation after the initial cheque bounced due to the tenant's delay in cashing it, and that she was denied natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly exercised its discretion under s. 190(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act to extend the time requirement, and that the tenant was afforded procedural fairness.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for property damage against former tenants for lack of jurisdiction.

The tenants had vacated the property on July 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that under the amended Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Landlord and Tenant Board does not have jurisdiction over claims where the tenant vacated before September 21, 2021.

Therefore, the Small Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction.

The matter was remanded to the Small Claims Court.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay rent arrears for a basement unit.

He argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the lease was part of a larger commercial transaction and he never lived in the unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of s. 202(1) of the Act to ascertain the real substance of the transaction.

The court noted the appellant voluntarily entered into a residential lease to avoid paying HST and could not resile from it when convenient.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent, as well as the subsequent review decision upholding the eviction.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because she allegedly did not receive the notice of hearing, was told by the landlord's agent not to attend, and was denied access to duty counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The court noted the LTB's factual findings regarding service of the notice and the appellant's lack of diligence were not appealable, and an official transcript refuted her claim about being denied duty counsel.

The moving party tenant sought to vary a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed his appeal as abandoned.

The tenant had appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction and arrears order but repeatedly failed to deliver his appeal materials despite multiple extensions of time.

The Divisional Court panel found no error in the case management judge's discretionary decision to dismiss the appeal, noting the tenant's repeated failure to meet court-ordered schedules.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the respondent tenant a rent abatement and damages for illegal entry, lockout, and harassment.

The appellant argued the Board erred in finding he was a landlord rather than a roommate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's arguments raised questions of fact, not law, which cannot be appealed under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also declined to award costs to the successful self-represented respondent for lost wages.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to the respondents' tenancy in a rooming house.

The landlord argued the tenancy was exempt under s. 5(i) of the Act because she occasionally stayed in unoccupied rooms and later moved into the building.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the relationship is characterized at the time it commenced.

The court affirmed that occasional stays do not constitute 'living in the building' for the purposes of the shared-facility exemption.

The tenants brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board order that required the landlords to return possession of the rental unit.

The landlords had previously exercised self-help to evict the tenants while they were out of the country.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to lift the stay, finding the tenants failed to demonstrate unusual hardship as they were residing in Dubai and had no firm plans to return.

The court also dismissed the tenants' alternative requests for an interlocutory injunction and a Certificate of Pending Litigation.