Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court, triggering an automatic stay of eviction.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that it raised no question of law and was an abuse of process, as the tenant had not paid rent since the eviction order.

The court denied the tenant's request to cross-examine the landlord's affiant, finding it untimely and irrelevant.

The court quashed the appeal, finding it was devoid of merit as it raised no genuine questions of law, and held that maintaining the stay without paying rent constituted an abuse of process.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy and ordering payment for damages.

The tenants had failed to attend the initial Board hearing and their request for a review was dismissed.

The Divisional Court found that the tenants' appeal was an abuse of process due to their failure to pay rent, delay, and non-compliance with court directions.

The court also found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it did not raise a genuine question of law.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The tenants brought a motion to quash the landlord's appeal of an interim order by the Landlord and Tenant Board that required the landlord to return possession of their residential units following an illegal lockout.

The landlord had refused the tenants access to their units after a minor fire, despite a city order permitting access.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Board's order was interlocutory and therefore not subject to appeal.

The court also held that the landlord's appeal was an abuse of process intended to delay proceedings and subvert the tenants' presumptive right to occupy their homes.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his tenancy on the basis of fraud.

The tenant obtained an automatic stay of the eviction order upon filing the appeal.

The court directed the tenant to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed as an abuse of process, given the LTB's finding of fraud and the tenant's failure to pay rent, resulting in over $71,000 in arrears.

Finding that the tenant failed to raise an appealable issue and was using the appeal process to perpetuate the fraud and avoid paying rent, the court lifted the stay and summarily dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The moving party sought leave to extend the time to bring a motion to vary a previous order that had dismissed her request to extend the time to appeal Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.

She also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding ongoing noise and harassment complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time without justification.

The court also held that the fresh evidence was irrelevant to the previous decisions and that the underlying appeal lacked merit as it challenged factual findings rather than errors of law.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering eviction.

The Board found that the tenant substantially interfered with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment by repeatedly refusing entry to real estate agents, engaging in abusive behaviour, and sending threatening emails.

The tenant argued the Board erred by basing the eviction solely on his refusal to allow photographs of the unit and alleged bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tenant could not raise new issues not presented to the Board, the eviction was based on a broader pattern of conduct, and there was no evidence of bias.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board settlement order and a subsequent review order, arguing procedural unfairness because a term allowing eviction without notice under s. 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act was included without their consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the time period for the s. 78 term had expired without the landlord relying on it.

The Court also noted that even if the appeal were not moot, it would be dismissed because the Board has statutory discretion to include fair conditions in its orders, and the tenant raised no error of law.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of Landlord and Tenant Board orders pending the tenant's appeal, citing rental arrears.

The court found that the tenant had paid the majority of the arrears and December rent, leaving only a minimal amount owing.

The court declined to lift the stay but adjourned the motion without prejudice if future rent was not paid.

The court also granted the self-represented tenant a final extension of time to perfect her appeal.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating a tenancy but denying jurisdiction to award compensation under an L3 application.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to award compensation on an L3 application, which is strictly for termination.

However, the Court found a breach of procedural fairness because the LTB member determined the termination date without allowing the landlord to make submissions on that issue.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the specific termination date, while the jurisdiction appeal was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the order was made on consent and required leave to appeal.

The tenant brought a cross-motion for interim possession of her unit pending the appeal, arguing her consent was vitiated by mental health issues and lack of accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the validity of the consent was a serious issue to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the tenant's motion for interim possession subject to conditions, noting she would suffer irreparable harm if the unit was re-rented and her appeal rendered moot.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The landlords argued the appeal was an abuse of process because the tenant had not paid rent for 18 months and was using the appeal's automatic stay to remain rent-free.

The Divisional Court found that while the appeal raised potential questions of law, the tenant's persistent failure to pay rent and avowed intention to continue withholding rent constituted an abuse of process.

The court ordered the appeal quashed and the stay lifted unless the tenant paid all arrears by a specified date.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction from a housing co-operative.

He argued procedural unfairness regarding the scheduling of an expedited remote hearing, the use of security video evidence, and findings on conduct not in the eviction notices, as well as a failure to accommodate his disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the remote hearing process or the admission of evidence, and concluding that the adjudicator had appropriately considered and accommodated his disability by delaying the eviction.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

She argued there was a lack of procedural fairness because the Board relied on prior mediated agreements and she could not cross-examine the landlord's representative.

She also argued the Board erred in refusing to grant relief from eviction under s. 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, as the prior orders were not confidential and the tenant did not object or request an adjournment.

The Court also found no error in principle in the Board's exercise of discretion to refuse relief from eviction.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that he failed to pay the lawfully required rent.

The tenant argued that the landlord failed to provide proper 90-day notice of the rent increase, that a letter stating a lower rent amount was binding, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

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

The Board correctly determined that the 90-day notice period commenced with the delivery of the proposed rent increase, and the finding that the lower rent amount in the letter was a clerical error was a factual determination not reviewable on appeal.

No costs were awarded due to the landlord's clerical error.

The appellant tenant sought a stay of an eviction order pending an appeal.

A previous stay had been lifted by another judge due to the tenant's failure to pay rent on time, resulting in over $30,000 in arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for a stay, finding no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as there had been no material change in circumstances since the previous order.

In the alternative, the court held that a stay was not warranted on the merits, as the tenant failed to meet the test for a stay and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial decision finding that an oral agreement between the parties validly terminated a residential tenancy.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 is a complete code and mandates written notice to terminate a tenancy.

The trial judge's finding of an oral agreement was an error in law.

The court set aside the trial judgment and awarded the landlord $6,095.00 for unpaid rent, plus costs.

The tenant sought an extension of time to appeal a decision regarding her tenancy.

The Divisional Court granted the extension on the condition that the tenant pay rent on a go-forward basis, file proof of payment, and order transcripts for the appeal.

If the conditions are not met, the appeal will be dismissed without further notice.

The applicant tenant sought an order requiring the Landlord and Tenant Board to produce a transcript of the proceedings before the Board as part of its obligation to file the record with the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the request, clarifying that under Rule 25.2 of the Board's Rules of Practice, the Board is only required to provide a recording of the proceedings.

If a party wishes to rely on the evidence, it is their responsibility to arrange and pay for a professional transcription of the recording.

The appellant housing co-operative appealed a judgment that declared the respondent's membership and occupancy rights terminated but stayed the enforcement of the eviction and arrears on certain conditions.

The respondent, who is disabled, had fallen into arrears after his income decreased and the co-operative froze subsidies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the hearing judge erred in principle by effectively granting an indefinite and retroactive subsidy to the respondent, which was an unwarranted interference with the co-operative's democratic decision-making process and imposed an unfair financial burden on the other members.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the tribunal erred in finding he was the tenant rather than his foundation.

The Divisional Court found the tribunal made a correct finding of fact based on the lease signature and that the appeal failed to raise a legitimate question of law.

The court granted the motion, quashing the appeal as an abuse of process designed to obtain an automatic stay of eviction.