Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering them to repay unlawful rent increases to the tenants.

The landlords argued that section 135.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which deems certain rent increases not void if paid for 12 consecutive months, prevented the Board from ordering repayment.

The Divisional Court found that while the Board erred in characterizing the legislative purpose of section 135.1, it did not err in interpreting 'finally determined' or in applying the law to the facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and the landlords were required to repay the illegal rent.

The moving party tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including a termination order for failure to comply with a payment schedule for rental arrears.

At the hearing, the court offered the parties an opportunity to resolve the matter given the tenant's significant efforts to pay and the landlord's responsiveness.

The parties reached a resolution where the tenant agreed to pay the outstanding arrears of $6,604.24 by December 31, 2023, along with $2,500 in costs.

The motion for an extension of time was adjourned pending completion of the agreed terms.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to appeal and apply for judicial review of three Landlord and Tenant Board orders, including a 2023 eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant's challenges were brought after the statutory deadlines had passed.

The Divisional Court denied the extension for the 2022 orders and the judicial review application due to lengthy delay and lack of merit.

However, the court granted a short extension of time to appeal the 2023 eviction order, imposing strict conditions including the payment of ongoing rent.

The appellant tenant appealed an LTB order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

He argued procedural unfairness because the LTB member had initially dismissed the landlord's application at a hearing scheduled in error, but then reversed the dismissal and rescheduled the hearing.

The tenant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing, and the eviction order was made.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, as the LTB member was correcting a mistake and the tenant had received notice of the new hearing date.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that denied a motion to set aside an eviction order.

The eviction was ordered after the tenant failed to make payments required under a prior consent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the LTB's decision was based on factual findings regarding the tenant's failure to pay.

The eviction was permitted to be enforced, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The tenants appealed an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board that dismissed their motion for a voiding order without notice to the landlords.

The Divisional Court held that the Residential Tenancies Act does not confer a right of appeal from interlocutory orders.

The tenants' notice of appeal was quashed, and the statutory stay of the LTB endorsement was terminated, with the tenants granted an extension to seek leave to appeal.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which had terminated their tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the unit for her own use.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by incorrectly placing the burden of proof on the tenants to show the landlord lacked good faith.

The Court also held that the Board's reasons were inadequate, as they merely stated a preference for the landlord's evidence without providing any explanation, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing before a different member.

The tenant filed a notice of appeal from a consent eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court quashed the notice of appeal, noting that under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a consent order requires leave of the court.

The court granted the tenant an extension to bring a motion for leave to appeal and ordered a conditional stay of the eviction order, provided the tenant pays her monthly rent and arrears within 30 days.

The court also ordered that the motion for leave and the merits of the appeal be heard together.

The tenants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review a case management judge's order requiring them to pay ongoing rent and a portion of substantial arrears to maintain a stay of eviction pending their appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenants argued the respondent was not the true landlord and objected to the case management process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the case management judge's discretionary order, and affirmed the court's practice of managing LTB appeals efficiently.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant failed to comply with prior court directions to pay rent, file appeal materials, and did not appear on the motion.

The court found the appeal was continued solely for delay and to obtain the benefit of an automatic stay.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, the stay was lifted, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The landlords appealed and the tenant cross-appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding an illegal lock-out and harassment.

The landlords abandoned their appeal.

On the cross-appeal, the tenant argued the Board erred in law by failing to address his claim for general damages for pain and suffering, despite finding compelling evidence of harassment and illegal lock-out.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the Board's failure to address the claim rendered the decision incapable of appellate review.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal and ordered the landlords to pay $5,000 in general damages.

The tenant appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Board had initially ordered eviction for rent arrears, but upon review, allowed the landlord to withdraw its application after the tenant paid the arrears.

The tenant argued the landlord could not withdraw the application after the hearing started.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law as the Board had granted permission for the withdrawal, and noting the appeal was moot since there was no longer a live controversy between the parties.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order dismissing her $35,000 claim against her landlord for misrepresentation based on testimony given at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court held that the claim was barred by the doctrine of witness immunity and absolute privilege, and that the underlying issues had already been fully litigated before the Board and on subsequent appeals.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use, arguing the application was retaliatory and in bad faith under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the documents were available before the hearing and were an attempt to reargue facts.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenants' arguments regarding retaliation, the landlord's conduct, and procedural fairness were essentially challenges to the LTB's factual findings, which do not constitute extricable errors of law.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order that denied a request to review a consent eviction order.

At a case management conference, the court considered whether to lift the automatic stay of eviction pending appeal.

The court ordered the tenant to pay $12,000 in acknowledged rent arrears and ongoing monthly rent of $1,345 as a condition of maintaining the stay of the eviction order.

The self-represented appellant tenant sought a second adjournment of his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The adjournment was requested pending the outcome of a motion he filed with the Board seeking to find the landlord's witness in contempt under s. 13(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, finding that the interests of justice favoured allowing the appellant time to pursue the contempt motion, which related to a live evidentiary issue concerning credibility that could affect the appeal.

The moving parties, who were appealing an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, brought a motion to be referred to by pseudonyms in the court proceeding.

The eviction stemmed from the moving parties' inappropriate conduct toward other tenants regarding COVID-19 vaccinations and masks.

Applying the Sherman Estate framework, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to demonstrate that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest or that the information was so sensitive as to be an affront to dignity.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating its tenancy because the landlords sold the premises and the purchaser required it for their own use.

The tenant argued that the landlords failed to pay the required one month's rent in compensation under s. 49.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act because the payment was made before the Notice to Terminate was served.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not require the compensation to be paid after the notice is served, provided it is paid prior to the termination date.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

The moving party, a former superintendent, argued his employment was unlawfully terminated due to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not raise an error of law, and that further delay would cause ongoing prejudice to the landlord given the accumulating rental arrears.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant, who was incarcerated, failed to appear and had previously failed to comply with strict conditions for an extension of time to appeal, including paying rent and arrears.

The court found the notice of appeal identified no grounds of appeal or questions of law.

The appeal was deemed manifestly devoid of merit and quashed, with the automatic stay lifted.