Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The tenant appealed an eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board applied an incorrect or incomplete legal test by only considering the discretionary provision under s. 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and failing to consider the mandatory provision under s. 83(3).

The Board had explicitly found that the landlord substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment, which could constitute a serious breach under s. 83(3).

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the same board member for reconsideration.

Following a motion regarding a residential tenancy and alleged fraud, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had been successful in obtaining what they sought, as the appellant was permitted to remain in the home while the respondent began receiving rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court.

The court found that the appeal raised no question of law, as required by section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and that the tenants were merely seeking to re-try the case.

The court also dismissed the tenants' allegation of bias, noting that disagreement with the Tribunal's factual findings does not constitute bias.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,000.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing he was denied procedural fairness because he was given only thirteen days over the Christmas holidays to pay rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting the tenant failed to attend the original hearing, took no steps to pay the arrears after receiving notice, and continued to reside in the property rent-free for ten months.

The landlord appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding that he gave a notice of termination for personal use in bad faith, and a review order refusing to admit new evidence regarding the tenant's damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of bad faith, concluding there was a reasonable basis in the evidence for the Member's decision.

However, the Court found the Reviewing Member erred in excluding new evidence about the tenant vacating her new premises, as the evidence was not reasonably discoverable prior to the hearing.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the issue of damages was remitted to a differently constituted panel.

The appellant commercial tenant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent landlord damages for breach of a lease.

The trial judge found the tenant failed to leave the premises in a good state of repair, including failing to replace a broken HVAC unit and remove a mirror.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, deducting a 15% administrative fee that was not authorized by the lease for non-structural repairs.

The appellant appealed a judgment terminating her membership and occupancy rights in a non-profit housing co-operative.

The co-operative's board had voted to evict her following complaints about her behaviour, but suspended the eviction subject to receiving no further complaints.

After receiving more complaints, the co-operative lifted the suspension and obtained an eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the board's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and free from a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating his tenancy after the Board found he had assaulted the building superintendent.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by failing to consider his personal circumstances, including his lack of a criminal record, financial situation, and ties to the community, as required by section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant had adduced little to no evidence on these factors before the Board, and the Board had properly considered section 83 based on the evidentiary record before it.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had fallen into arrears after a social housing agency discontinued paying its portion of the rent, a decision the tenant was challenging via judicial review.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the accumulation of rental arrears did not constitute demonstrable and unusual hardship for the landlord.

Furthermore, lifting the stay would likely render the tenant homeless and remove his incentive to pursue the judicial review, which could ultimately result in the arrears being paid.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to the Divisional Court and brought a motion to stay the appeal pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute an improper collateral attack on the Board's proceedings.

However, the court granted the appellant an extension of time to perfect the appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments to the respondent to maintain the property.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to terminate a tenancy for its own use under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Board had ruled that a large corporation could not claim 'own use' of a rental unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a corporation can occupy a rental unit through its employees or agents, such as a live-in superintendent, to fulfill its statutory duties.

The Court set aside the Board's orders and granted vacant possession to the appellant.

The tenant appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy and awarding $20,000 in damages to the landlord following a fire.

The appellants argued errors of law regarding the cause of the fire, the validity of the N5 Form, and the damages award.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law regarding the fire's cause or the N5 Form, as these were factual findings.

While the Board may have erred by failing to consider the tenants' repair efforts and not ruling on a roofer's estimate, the Court found ample evidence supported the conclusion that damages exceeded $20,000.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant sought an adjournment of two motions (her motion to file a self-prepared transcript and the respondent landlord's motion to quash the appeal) due to illness, supported by a vague medical note.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing the appeal of the Landlord and Tenant Board order was frivolous.

The court granted the adjournment on peremptory terms, ordering the appellant to pay $2,759.36 in rental arrears by a specified date, failing which the stay of the eviction order would be lifted.

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

The tenant, who resided in social housing and had a psychiatric disability, appealed the eviction order on grounds of procedural fairness and misapprehension of evidence regarding the duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the tenant raised sufficient legal characteristics in the grounds of appeal and that it would be premature to dismiss the appeal as manifestly devoid of merit.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs against the respondent tenants.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to order the costs payable on a joint and several basis, instead directing that each respondent tenant pay an equal share of the total costs award.

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

The tenant had failed to pay rent since the beginning of the lease, accumulating over $25,000 in arrears, and had repeatedly provided dishonoured cheques to delay eviction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding the appeal was devoid of merit, vexatious, and an abuse of process designed solely to manipulate the automatic stay provisions and live rent-free.

The court dismissed the appeal, awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlord, and called for legislative amendments to restrict the right of appeal in residential tenancy cases to prevent such abuses.

The moving party (respondent on appeal) brought a cross-motion to quash the appellants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order and to lift the statutory stay under s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The underlying dispute involved possession of a residential property where the moving party claimed an illegal lockout and the appellants were prospective purchasers who subsequently became tenants.

The court found the appeal was not manifestly devoid of merit and was brought in time, as it appealed the Board's review decision rather than the original interim order.

The court also declined to lift the statutory stay, finding the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo until the appeal could be heard.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff tenant sought an extension of time to appeal an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The tenant was approximately one month out of time to file the appeal.

The court found that the tenant was aware of the deadline and the appropriate route to appeal.

The court declined to extend the time, noting that the appeal lacked merit as it turned on findings of fact and credibility regarding the tenant's disruption of other tenants' quiet enjoyment.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering a 10% rent abatement for 53 tenants due to alleged failure to maintain the building and interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board member's reasons were conclusory, lacked transparency, and failed to analyze the statutory requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a re-hearing solely on the issue of the landlord's obligation to repair.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal and lift the stay of eviction.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding it was not clearly devoid of merit and should be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

However, the court ordered the tenant to pay $15,250 in rent arrears and continue paying $3,050 monthly as a condition of maintaining the stay pending appeal, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.