Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering them to pay damages for an illegal eviction.

They argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the tenant shared a kitchen or bathroom with the owner under s. 5(i).

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the exemption does not apply when the owner is a corporation, as a corporation cannot 'live' in the premises or share facilities in the manner contemplated by the Act.

The court also dismissed the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, upholding the corrected damages award of $14,620.

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

The tenant, who suffers from a mental disorder, appealed on grounds including the LTB's failure to apply the correct Human Rights Code accommodation test, failure to meaningfully consider relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and denial of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the grounds of appeal raised arguable questions of law and the appeal was not an abuse of process.

The court also declined to lift the statutory stay of eviction or order security for costs.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, obtaining an automatic stay.

The landlord sought to lift the stay due to nearly two years of unpaid rent totaling over $36,800.

The court directed the tenant to provide proof of rent payments, which the tenant failed to do.

Finding the tenant's conduct to be an egregious abuse of process, the court lifted the stay of eviction.

The appeal was subsequently dismissed after the tenant failed to comply with further case management directions.

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

The tenant had accumulated approximately $45,000 in rent arrears and failed to perfect her appeal.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit as it did not raise a question of law and was an abuse of process brought solely for delay.

The landlord's motion to quash was granted, and the tenant's cross-motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the respondents' tenancies of two cottages for his children's use.

The respondents claimed they owned the cottages and only leased the land.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to decide the ownership issue, found that the respondents owned the cottages, and dismissed the eviction applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's appeal, holding that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine ownership for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act, did not breach procedural fairness, and correctly concluded that the Act superseded the common law of fixtures.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction based on serious impairment of the landlord's safety.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal as an abuse of process and manifestly devoid of merit, noting the tenant had accumulated over $10,000 in rent arrears and failed to attend the LTB hearing.

The tenant brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging the landlord changed the locks in violation of the statutory stay.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding the appeal was an abuse of process designed to allow the tenant to live rent-free, and raised no extricable question of law regarding the LTB's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

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

The tenants had not paid rent for over a year, causing the landlord severe financial hardship.

The tenants appealed the eviction order to the Divisional Court, triggering an automatic stay, and concurrently sought a review before the LTB.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal on three grounds: it was premature because the LTB review was ongoing; it was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no question of law; and it was an abuse of process designed solely to delay eviction and extend a rent-free tenancy.

The automatic stay of the eviction order was vacated.

The landlord brought a motion to require the tenants to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of maintaining the statutory stay of an eviction order pending their appeal to the Divisional Court.

The landlord also sought security for costs.

The court found that the tenants' failure to pay rent while enjoying the protection of the statutory stay amounted to an abuse of process.

The court ordered the tenants to pay the outstanding arrears and ongoing rent to maintain the stay, but dismissed the request for security for costs to avoid unfairly burdening the tenants.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her family following an altercation with the building superintendent over a clogged sink.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board made several errors of law.

Specifically, the Board failed to consider whether the tenant 'permitted' the illegal act (spitting) under s. 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, improperly speculated about future risk under s. 66(1), and failed to consider all relevant circumstances for relief from eviction under s. 83.

The eviction order was set aside and the landlord's applications were dismissed.

The moving party, an evicted residential tenant, brought a motion to reinstate his tenancy pending the hearing of his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The Board had terminated his tenancy for seriously impairing the safety of others, finding that the tenant and his guests engaged in illegal activities, threatened other tenants, and caused a police raid.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found no serious issue to be tried regarding the tenant's claim of lack of notice, and held that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the landlord due to the safety risks posed by the tenant's activities.

The motion for a stay and reinstatement was dismissed.

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

The respondent landlord requested the appeal be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an abuse of process, noting the appellant had already appealed the prior decision and had it quashed.

The Divisional Court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the appellant under Rule 2.1.01 to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and stayed the appeal pending the outcome.

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

The Board found that the appellant's conduct, which included verbal harassment and laying siege to the co-op office, seriously impaired the safety of the property manager.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's formulation of the test for serious impairment of safety and no palpable and overriding error of fact in its evidentiary findings.

The landlord obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board due to the tenant's failure to pay rent.

The tenant appealed the decision to the Divisional Court.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal related solely to the Board Member's assessment and weighing of evidence, which do not constitute questions of law as required by section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

Concluding that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and commenced for the purpose of delay, the court quashed the appeal and ordered the tenant to pay costs.

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

The tenant argued the Board erred in its application of s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding serious breaches and retaliation.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised only issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law.

The court also found the appeal was an abuse of process due to the tenant's failure to pay rent and delay in perfecting the appeal.

The motion to quash was granted.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent and damages.

The tenant brought a motion to extend the time to perfect her appeal, arguing the Board failed to accommodate her disabilities by denying an adjournment and a request to participate by telephone.

The landlord brought a cross-motion to quash the appeal as manifestly devoid of merit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's motion, finding the appeal raised a valid question of law regarding procedural fairness.

The court granted the tenant's motion to extend the time to perfect the appeal, but on the condition that she pay all outstanding and ongoing rent.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court expressed dismay that the appellant failed to file a proper record, transcripts, or exhibits, and instead filed an affidavit without moving to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent also filed an affidavit improperly.

The court adjourned the appeal, imposing tight timelines for the appellant to order transcripts and perfect the appeal, and ordered no costs to date.

The appellant appealed an eviction order and review order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing he did not receive notice of the hearing and was not a tenant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had actual notice of the hearing and chose not to attend.

The Court also held that the Board's finding that the appellant was a tenant was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing an application for a rent reduction.

The Board had found that the rent applied only to the house and that the garage was provided free of charge.

The Divisional Court held this was a palpable and overriding error amounting to an error of law, as the lease explicitly included access to the garage and backyard.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing to determine if an abatement was appropriate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his application for a refund of a $600 rental deposit.

The appellant argued he was entitled to rescind the tenancy agreement due to misrepresentations about security and a request for post-dated cheques.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or breach of natural justice by the Tribunal, and held that there is no unilateral right to rescind a validly formed contract prior to the occupancy date.

The tenants appealed an eviction order and a jurisdictional ruling made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The Court found that meaningful appellate review was impossible due to a malfunction that resulted in missing transcripts for a full day of evidence, combined with the Board member's failure to provide adequate reasons for her decision.