Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The moving party, a self-represented tenant, sought an urgent stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending a review of a single judge's order that had dismissed his appeal for delay and lifted the stay.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried regarding the dismissal for delay, as the tenant had breached a court-ordered schedule without a plausible explanation.

The balance of convenience also favoured the landlord due to the tenant's history of non-payment of rent and delay tactics.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

However, because court staff had misdirected the tenant regarding the proper appellate route, the court granted an extension of time to bring the review motion.

The tenants appealed an order requiring them to pay $45,397.40 in rent arrears to the landlord.

They argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matter should have been heard by the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging the landlord artificially inflated the arrears by refusing rent to exceed the Board's monetary limit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly exercised jurisdiction under s. 207(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, as the claim exceeded the Board's $35,000 limit, and there was no evidence the landlord improperly inflated the arrears.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to his occupation of an Airbnb unit.

The appellant had booked the unit for several months and alleged he was illegally locked out when the respondent refused a further extension.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the unit fell within the section 5(a) exemption for temporary living accommodations, noting the unit was fully furnished and akin to a motel.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's decision to hear the jurisdiction and lockout applications together.

The appeal was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting the tenants rent abatements for failure to maintain the rental unit.

At a case conference, the landlord sought to schedule a motion to re-assert a stay of the ongoing $1,000 monthly rent abatement, claiming the required repairs were complete.

The tenants disputed this claim.

The court set a schedule for the stay motion, adjourned the main appeal, and ordered that the landlord and his children are prohibited from personally entering the rental unit pending the motion, requiring any remaining work to be done by licensed professionals.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that upheld the dismissal of his application for failing to attend the hearing.

The tenant had requested an adjournment due to a scheduled rotator cuff surgery and provided medical letters, including one from his treating psychiatrist stating he would be unable to participate in the hearing process.

The LTB denied the adjournment, finding the medical opinion speculative, and proceeded in the tenant's absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB superficially rejected the medical evidence and denied the tenant procedural fairness by depriving him of an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The matter was remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The moving party, a self-represented tenant, appeared for a motion without having uploaded her materials to Case Center in advance.

She brought a considerable volume of printed material but no copies for the responding parties or the court.

To accommodate the moving party's agent, who had a hearing impairment, and to provide a fair opportunity to present arguments, the Divisional Court converted the oral motion to a hearing in writing and set a peremptory schedule for the delivery of electronic materials and written submissions.

The self-represented appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her $30,000 claim for property damage because she failed to provide proof of repair costs.

The appellant failed to perfect the appeal or upload any documents.

The court noted that while the failure to prove repair costs is a question of fact, the potential entitlement to nominal damages or procedural fairness might raise a question of law.

The court adjourned the matter, directing a case conference to reschedule the appeal and strongly urging the appellant to seek legal advice.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction for persistently failing to pay rent on time.

The tenant argued the LTB was procedurally unfair in scheduling the landlord's applications before her own and erred in law by not excusing her deliberate withholding of rent due to maintenance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's scheduling was a discretionary matter that did not breach procedural fairness.

The Court further held that persistent late payment is a factual finding not subject to appeal, and the LTB properly considered the tenant's circumstances when declining to grant relief from eviction under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision granting an eviction for purchaser's own use under s. 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in finding the property contained three or fewer units and denied her procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment and a video walkthrough.

The tenant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the evidence was available at the hearing and irrelevant to any legal error.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the number of units was a factual finding not reviewable on appeal, and the LTB reasonably exercised its discretion regarding the adjournment and evidentiary procedures.

The appellant, a not-for-profit corporation owning a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent leaseholder was a 'tenant' under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued that the respondent, as a 'member' of the non-share corporation, fell within the statutory exclusion for a 'shareholder' of a corporation that owns the residential complex.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation that a 'member' of a not-for-profit corporation is not equivalent to a 'shareholder' for the purposes of the exclusion.

The landlords obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board for personal use of the rental unit.

The tenants appealed the decision to the Divisional Court, alleging procedural unfairness and raising various irrelevant issues.

The landlords moved to quash the appeal.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Board's decision was based on straightforward factual findings that were not subject to appeal, and that the tenants' procedural fairness claims were without foundation.

The appeal was quashed and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent tenant's lease was residential, not commercial.

The landlord had locked the tenant out for non-payment of rent, claiming the Commercial Tenancies Act applied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord could not oust the Board's jurisdiction by unilaterally locking the tenant out.

The court further found no error of law in the Board's application of section 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act to ascertain the real substance of the transaction, despite the lease being labeled commercial.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy and evicting them for smoking marijuana in their unit, which caused health issues for the landlords' children.

The tenants argued the notice of termination was invalid because it failed to specify the exact times they smoked, and that they were denied procedural fairness during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act requires grounds, not specific times, and that the notice provided sufficient detail.

The court also found no procedural unfairness in the Board's conduct of the hearing.

The appellant landlords appealed three decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding they terminated a tenancy in bad faith and denying two subsequent review requests.

The landlords failed to attend the initial hearing, claiming confusion over multiple hearing notices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law.

The Board reasonably proceeded in the landlords' absence, considered their late-filed evidence, and properly denied the review requests due to the landlords' lack of diligence in failing to attend or seek clarification.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy to allow the landlords to demolish and rebuild the house.

The tenant had failed to attend the eviction hearing and subsequently sought a review, which the Board dismissed after finding he had been properly served with notice and did not genuinely intend to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding service were supported by the record and that there was no error of law or breach of procedural fairness.

The self-represented tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy.

At the hearing of the appeal, the tenants requested an adjournment to file materials, citing a traumatic brain injury.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment, noting it was the second such request and no medical evidence was provided.

On the merits, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board did not unreasonably exercise its discretion in denying a prior adjournment request and proceeding in the tenants' absence.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision that applied the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act to a claim for residential rental arrears.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the six-year limitation period under section 17 of the Real Property Limitations Act applies to claims for rent between a landlord and tenant.

The court increased the judgment for rental arrears from $8,400 to the full claimed amount of $21,600 and awarded costs to the appellant.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of eviction and quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order.

The tenant had previously consented to an eviction order, which he appealed and had quashed.

He then sought a review of the consent order, which was dismissed, and appealed that review order.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no question of law, was devoid of merit, and constituted an abuse of process aimed solely at delaying eviction.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the tenant was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Review Body decision revoking his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidy and a subsequent decision refusing to reconsider the revocation.

The applicant's subsidy was revoked after he failed to provide original tax documents and submitted falsified documents.

The Divisional Court held that the initial revocation was reasonable.

While the Review Body erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the decision simply because the applicant was no longer a tenant, the court found that declining reconsideration was nonetheless reasonable given the 18-month delay and the applicant's failure to provide valid documentation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision without first exhausting statutory appeal rights under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Board moved to quash the application on this basis.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, noting that the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Yatar shifted the jurisprudential ground regarding the necessity of exhausting appeal rights before seeking judicial review.

The court deferred the issue to be decided by the panel hearing the application.