Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order on the basis that it was manifestly devoid of merit.

The tenant argued the eviction order was an improper collateral attack on a recognizance issued after related criminal charges were withdrawn, and alleged improper ex parte communications by the landlord.

The Divisional Court found both grounds of appeal manifestly devoid of merit, noting that the withdrawal of criminal charges does not preclude eviction based on the same underlying acts due to differing standards of proof.

The motion to quash was granted, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the landlord.

The landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their claims for property damage, including a mould problem.

The Board found that the landlords failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the tenants caused the problems.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's conclusion was a finding of fact and that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision awarding the landlord $10,439.50 for damages to the rental unit, including a destroyed kitchen countertop.

The tenant argued the Board erred by relying on hearsay evidence in the form of repair estimates and by double-counting expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that hearsay evidence is permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the Board reasonably concluded the countertop needed replacement without double-counting.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy due to illegal activities committed by her two sons, who were occupants of the unit.

The illegal activities included possession of stolen property and attacking a security officer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision to terminate the tenancy under section 61(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, or in its refusal to impose a condition barring one of the sons from the premises.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy for personal use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding good faith and that the affidavit required by s. 72 of the Residential Tenancies Act should have been sworn by the landlord's son.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the good faith finding was a question of fact not subject to appeal, and that the landlord's affidavit was sufficient as he required the unit for his personal use along with his family.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a commercial sublease dispute.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning its departure from the premises and whether the respondent was estopped from seeking damages due to an alleged agreement with the head lessor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant voluntarily vacated the premises and that there was no evidence of an agreement relieving the appellant of its sublease obligations.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for permitting illegal acts, specifically drug trafficking, in his unit.

The tenant argued the Board's reasons were defective and failed to consider relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons were sufficient, supported by ample evidence of drugs and weapons in the unit, and that the Board properly considered and rejected relief from forfeiture due to the risk posed to other residents.

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

The tenant had previously failed to comply with conditions of an adjournment, resulting in the lifting of a stay of eviction and the tenant vacating the unit.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding it was not so clearly devoid of merit as to warrant dismissal without a hearing.

However, the court ordered the tenant to perfect the appeal by a specified date, failing which it would be dismissed, and awarded costs of $2,500 to the landlord.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy after they were found ineligible for geared-to-income rent due to alleged misrepresentation of assets.

At the Board hearing, the tenants attempted to raise the issue of harassment by the landlord's property manager, but the Board refused to consider it because it was not raised two weeks prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law because section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the Board to permit a tenant to raise any issue that could be the subject of a tenant application.

The Board's order was set aside.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto.

The proposed class action alleged the City was negligent in failing to send statutory notices of rent reduction to tenants of rooming houses after municipal property taxes were reduced.

The motions judge had found it plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care to the tenants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that based on the statutory scheme and the specific relationship created by the Parkdale Pilot Project, it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no duty of care.

The proceeding was certified as a class action.

The applicants, who operated an unlicensed rooming house, sought a stay of a writ of possession pending their appeal of the order granting it.

They argued the motion judge erred by proceeding while they were unrepresented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured them.

The respondent's cross-motion to quash the appeal was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of notice.

The appellant appealed an order terminating her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative.

She argued there was a lack of procedural fairness before the Board and that the motions judge erred by applying a standard of patent unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness and concluding that, despite misstating the standard of review, the motions judge had actually applied the correct reasonableness standard and properly found the Board's decision to be reasonable.

The landlord appealed a decision denying her application to terminate a residential tenancy for her own use and the use of her children.

The initial application was denied because possession was sought for her children, not herself.

A subsequent application was denied on the basis of res judicata.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding res judicata inapplicable or subject to discretion, and incorporated the parties' Minutes of Settlement into the court order.

The respondent landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay of the eviction.

The tenant was $8,800 in rent arrears and claimed an equitable interest in the property, having registered a Certificate of Pending Litigation in a separate action.

The court found the motion to quash premature but ordered the stay lifted unless the tenant paid all rent arrears and ongoing monthly rent pending the appeal.

The tenant moved to set aside a Notice of Abandonment and resurrect his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding non-payment of rent and unit conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no practical need to continue with two appeals, as the tenant had another pending appeal where he could raise his evidentiary concerns.

Furthermore, the tenant provided no explanation for his six-month delay in seeking to set aside the abandonment.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to pay $3,000 in statutory compensation to former tenants who had received a notice of termination for conversion of their mobile home site.

The tenants were subsequently evicted for non-payment of rent and owed over $3,300 in arrears.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the compensation obligation survived the eviction and that the claim was not statute-barred.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the Board erred in law by failing to set off the rent arrears against the compensation owed, resulting in no net compensation payable to the tenants.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found a 9 percent rent increase levied exclusively against pet-owning tenants was an impermissible penalty under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Board held that this penalty substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the rental unit and awarded a rent abatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Board properly looked at the real substance of the rent increase.

The appellant, a tenant of 33 years, sought an extension of time to appeal an eviction order made under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the appellant had formed an intention to appeal, the delay was short and explained, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The court held that the appellant raised an arguable ground of appeal regarding the interpretation of s. 72(2)(a) of the Act, which had not been previously judicially interpreted.

The application to extend time was granted.

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 had not paid rent since December 2010 and raised bizarre grounds of appeal, including claims of government harassment and a de facto marriage obligation.

The court found the appeal to be utterly without merit and an abuse of process intended only to stay the eviction order.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay was vacated.

The appellant appealed two orders from the Small Claims Court that dismissed his actions against the respondents and prohibited him from commencing further proceedings.

The orders were made by the Small Claims Court judge on her own initiative, without a motion, notice, or an opportunity for the appellant to be heard.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Small Claims Court judge acted without jurisdiction and in breach of procedural fairness and natural justice.

The orders were set aside and costs were awarded to the appellant.