Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenants failed to comply with court directions, did not deliver responding materials, and failed to attend the virtual hearing despite multiple notices.

The court found the appeal did not raise a valid question of law, was manifestly devoid of merit, and was brought solely to delay the eviction.

The motion to quash was granted and the stay of the eviction order was lifted.

The appellant tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an eviction order for rental arrears.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the Board relied on correspondence introduced by the landlord's paralegal without cross-examination, and that the Board placed an unfair burden on them to prove they did not receive the hearing notices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was entitled to admit the reliable documentary evidence under its procedural rules and properly weighed the evidence on a balance of probabilities.

The Court also found no error in the Board's decision to hear the review request before addressing the landlord's breach of an interim order.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and seeking compensation for mold damage.

The Board had found the landlord failed to prove the tenant caused the mold and granted the tenant a rent abatement for inadequate ventilation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Board misstated the legal test for causation in its conclusion, the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice because the Board's factual finding that the tenant did not cause the mold was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dated July 4, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As both parties were self-represented and no costs submissions were filed, no costs were awarded.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to reimburse the tenant for rent overcharges, as well as the Board's subsequent refusal to review the decision after the landlord failed to attend the hearing.

The landlord argued the Board cited the wrong statutory provision regarding parking fees and erred in rejecting its explanation of a computer glitch for missing the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test despite citing the wrong section, and that the Board's finding on the landlord's lack of reasonable diligence was an unappealable question of mixed fact and law.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlords' application to terminate the tenancy for demolition.

The tenant argued the planned work was a renovation, which would afford a right of first refusal to re-occupy the unit, rather than a demolition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB applied the correct legal test for demolition and that the tenant's arguments amounted to an impermissible attempt to reargue findings of fact.

The eviction was delayed due to the tenant's personal circumstances.

The moving party tenant sought to set aside two orders of Charney J. that lifted a stay of an eviction order and granted vacant possession to the landlords, and also sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to set aside the orders, finding no error of law, fact, or breach of procedural fairness, and noting the premises had already been re-rented.

The court also denied the extension of time to appeal, citing obvious prejudice to the landlords and the tenant's failure to demonstrate any merit to the appeal.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the landlords.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party landlords brought a motion in writing to lift the stay of an eviction order pending the tenants' appeal.

The court had previously directed the tenants to pay $6,000 per month towards rental arrears, which stood at $41,500, as a condition of the stay.

The tenants failed to make the January 1, 2024 payment and did not respond to the motion.

The court found it in the interests of justice to lift the stay due to the breach and the significant arrears.

The landlords' request to quash the appeal was denied pending further submissions.

The tenants were ordered to pay $500 in costs.

The landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant for seriously impairing safety by covering smoke detectors.

The LTB issued an eviction order following a hearing the tenant did not attend.

The tenant's request for review was dismissed.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, it was revealed that the LTB had no record confirming service of the Notice of Hearing on the parties.

The court found the tenant was denied procedural fairness, allowed the appeal, and set aside the eviction order.

Given the tenant's failure to pay rent since 2019, the court directed the LTB to hold an expedited consolidated hearing for all pending applications between the parties.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlords possession of the rental unit for personal use, thereby obtaining an automatic stay of eviction.

The tenant repeatedly refused to follow the court's case management directions, including failing to obtain and file transcripts of the tribunal hearing, and engaged in vexatious communications with the court.

The court lifted the stay of eviction and ultimately dismissed the appeal as abandoned due to the tenant's failure to comply with court orders.

The proposed intervener, Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO), brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal concerning an alleged illegal eviction.

The landlords opposed the motion, arguing it was a private dispute.

The court granted the motion, finding that ACTO had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the subject matter and could provide a useful and distinct perspective on the interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act, particularly regarding the remedies available for illegal evictions.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.

The tenant appealed three decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board relating to claims for damages and rent abatement due to excessive noise from adjacent units.

The Board had awarded a rent abatement and general damages, but dismissed a subsequent duplicative application based on res judicata.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's assessment of damages or its control of its own process.

The appellant landlord sought to adduce fresh evidence at the outset of an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The proposed evidence was an affidavit from building management stating there was no record of the landlord requesting the deactivation of the tenant's key fob.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the Palmer test.

The court found the evidence could have been obtained prior to the Board hearing with reasonable diligence, and that it would not have been dispositive of the lockout issue given the other evidence of the landlord's threats.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued she had an ownership interest in the property under an agreement of purchase and sale, and raised issues of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and holding that the Board was entitled to determine the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also upheld the Board's refusal to grant relief from eviction.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay $23,054.10 in rent and compensation to the respondent landlords.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Board refused her last-minute request for an adjournment on the basis of a religious holiday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

The court noted the appellant failed to provide timely notice of the conflict, did not comply with the Board's rules for adjournment requests, and had previously failed to comply with conditions attached to a prior adjournment.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a 15% rent reduction for tenants after the landlord unilaterally removed on-site storage lockers to build new rental units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations regarding the unreasonableness of the landlord's actions and the quantum of the rent reduction were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not subject to statutory appeal.

The Court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by crafting a global remedy for all affected tenants without requiring each individual tenant to testify.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying a motion to set aside an eviction order for rent arrears.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Board failed to consider emailed receipts proving payment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to send the evidence to the correct email address within the specified timeframe, and noted the receipts would not have cured the late payments anyway.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent landlord.

The self-represented tenant brought a motion for an extension and a stay of enforcement of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The court granted the motion on strict terms, requiring the tenant to pay current rent and a monthly amount towards arrears.

The court noted the tenant's history of failing to follow through on payment plans but granted a final opportunity to preserve the tenancy, emphasizing that any missed payments would result in the stay being lifted without further review.