Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the tenants' application for rent abatement.

The landlord had previously commenced a Superior Court application for unpaid occupancy fees, and the tenants subsequently applied to the Board for rent abatement due to alleged lack of heat.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by concluding it could not decline jurisdiction and by failing to consider whether the tenants' application was an abuse of process.

The Court found that allowing the Board application to proceed would lead to duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, as the tenants were raising the exact same issues as a set-off defense in the Superior Court action.

The appeal was allowed and the tenants' Board application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The tenants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including a consent eviction order and a refusal to extend the time to pay rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's orders and noting that the appeal was filed out of time.

The Court concluded that the appeal was an abuse of process intended solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction and allow the tenants to remain in the property without paying rent.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to extend the time to review a prior Board decision.

The Divisional Court issued a notice considering dismissal under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant failed to make written submissions.

The court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant's pattern of non-attendance, non-compliance with deadlines, and delay tactics to extend the stay of his eviction.

The Landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying an above-guideline rent increase for the cost of installing a fall arrest roof anchor system.

The Landlord argued it was denied procedural fairness when the LTB refused an adjournment to allow it to gather evidence proving the installation was legally necessary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Landlord bore the onus of proving the expenditure was necessary to comply with building standards and should have attended the hearing prepared with such evidence.

The Court also rejected the argument that the LTB improperly relied on a confidential prehearing note.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay the respondent tenant $1,130.00.

The appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by proceeding with the hearing in her absence after she sent a letter advising of a doctor's appointment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to follow the Board's procedures for requesting an adjournment and the Board properly exercised its discretion to proceed under the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision revoking his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance.

The housing provider terminated the subsidy after discovering the applicant was subject to bail conditions requiring him to reside with a surety and prohibiting contact with his children, meaning he had been absent from the unit for over 60 days and failed to report a change in household composition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the administrative decision was reasonable, properly interpreted the legislative scheme, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.

The applicant commenced an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering whether to dismiss the application as frivolous and vexatious because the applicant had not exhausted her statutory appeal rights under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that it was bound to fail in its current form, but did so without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a statutory appeal.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an appeal from an interim decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court ordered that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via video conference.

Detailed directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of documents, factums, compendiums, and costs materials using a password-protected drop box.

The tenants were evicted from their rent-geared-to-income apartment for persistent late payment of rent.

After the eviction was carried out and the apartment was leased to a new tenant, the tenants appealed the Landlord and Tenant Board's order and brought an urgent motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to reinstate their tenancy or provide an alternative unit pending the appeal.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to grant such relief, but applied the strict test for a mandatory injunction.

The motion was dismissed because the tenants failed to establish a strong prima facie case on appeal, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured displacing the new tenant or forcing the landlord to provide another unit.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy.

The appeal was adjourned on the condition that the appellants pay rent as it fell due.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a case management conference was scheduled, but the appellants failed to attend and had failed to pay rent for April and May.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal due to non-attendance and non-compliance with the adjournment order, granting the landlord permission to move for an eviction order, while allowing the appellants to move to set aside the dismissal if they had not abandoned the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction.

In her notice of appeal, she explicitly stated she only sought to extend her tenancy until December 31, 2019, to allow time to relocate due to alleged toxic mould.

The Divisional Court found that using an appeal solely to delay eviction via the automatic stay is an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1.01(1) without calling for written submissions from the appellant, as the abuse of process was plain on the face of the pleading and the appellant had already obtained the extra time she sought.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent tenant $25,000 in damages for illegal distraint and dismissing the landlord's claim for unpaid common area expenses.

The Divisional Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship ended when the landlord changed the locks, making the subsequent distraint of the tenant's chattels illegal.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the landlord's claim for common area expenses due to a lack of supporting evidence at trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his applications as abandoned.

The appellant failed to attend the initial hearing and later left a review hearing after his request for an adjournment was denied.

The Divisional Court found no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice, holding that the Board reasonably exercised its discretion to deny the adjournment and manage its own procedure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering him to vacate a property so the respondent landlord could occupy it for personal use.

The appellant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the parties had an agreement of purchase and sale, not a tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had jurisdiction to determine if the Residential Tenancies Act applied and that its factual findings of a tenancy and good faith requirement for possession were reasonable.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness regarding late-filed evidence.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the N5 notice of termination was void due to technical defects, specifically a missing bullet point and the inclusion of both repair and replacement costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the notice was compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act because a reasonable person would understand their options to void the notice.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay the tenant $675 for half a month's rent and a $2,000 administrative fine.

The Board found the landlord harassed the tenant, interfered with vital services, and acted in bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it raised no question of law and that the Board's findings and remedies were reasonable given the landlord's egregious conduct.

The tenant brought a motion seeking leave to extend the time to bring a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a previous decision quashing her appeal.

The tenant had been evicted and sought an order directing the landlord to lease her comparable premises.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the proposed motion lacked merit, as the motion judge made no error in finding the tenant failed to provide evidence supporting her requests for delay at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

The appellant tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order based on rent arrears.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant was aware of the hearing date but chose not to attend, and that the proposed appeal raised a question of fact rather than a question of law as required by section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court varied the eviction date to provide the appellant additional time to vacate the premises.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering him to pay damages to the respondent tenant for a bed bug infestation.

The landlord argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the property was exempt as shared accommodation.

The Board found as a fact that the tenant was not required to share a kitchen or bathroom with the landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal was restricted to questions of law under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and the landlord was improperly challenging findings of fact.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing it was an abuse of process and an appeal of a consent order requiring leave.

The tenant argued she was denied procedural fairness at the LTB hearing because her legal representative agreed to the eviction without her understanding or authorization, and the LTB member did not confirm her consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the LTB order was not a true consent order and the tenant raised a viable issue of procedural fairness that warranted a full appeal hearing.