Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy for causing damage to the rental unit and transferring occupancy to an unauthorized occupant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's arguments regarding the Board's factual findings and exercise of discretion did not raise any questions of law.

The Court also rejected the appellant's arguments that the Board failed to accommodate her disabilities, noting she was able to participate fully in the hearing.

The eviction order was stayed until June 1, 2015, to allow the appellant to find replacement accommodation.

The self-represented appellant requested an adjournment of her appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board to recast her Notice of Appeal and bring a motion for fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting the Notice of Appeal was filed over two years prior and the time for perfection had already been extended once.

The court held that granting the adjournment would be contrary to the fair and orderly administration of justice.

The appellant tenant appealed a Review Order of the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court.

The tenant argued that she was inappropriately charged for utilities as part of her rent geared-to-income.

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

The court held that under section 203 of the Residential Tenancies Act, the Board lacks jurisdiction to determine eligibility for or the amount of rent geared-to-income assistance, which must be addressed through the review process under the Housing Services Act, 2011.

The court declined to award costs.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy so the landlords' son could move into the unit.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law regarding the good faith requirement, maintenance breaches, human rights accommodation, and the landlords' corporate status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's determinations on good faith and maintenance were unappealable questions of fact, the eviction was unrelated to the tenant's disabilities, and the individual landlords met the statutory definition of a landlord.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and evicting them for committing an illegal act (breach of zoning by-law).

The Divisional Court found the Board erred by reversing the onus of proof regarding the zoning issue when there was no evidence the cabin was in the prohibited zone.

Furthermore, the Board erred in law by failing to dismiss the eviction application under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found the eviction application was brought because the tenants had successfully enforced their legal rights to resist an illegal rent increase, which mandates refusal of the eviction regardless of the landlord's good or bad faith.

The appeal was allowed and the eviction application dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his various claims against his former common law partner and her daughter for rent, parking, and other fees related to their occupation of his condominium.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court erred in finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board's prior eviction order extinguished the appellant's claim for occupation rent against the daughter for the period after the Board's order.

The appeal was allowed in part, awarding the appellant $23,000 in occupation rent against the daughter, while the dismissal of the remaining claims was upheld due to lack of jurisdiction and expired limitation periods.

The respondent landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively for an order requiring payment of rent arrears and ongoing rent, and security for costs.

The landlords argued the appeal was devoid of merit and filed solely for delay.

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

However, the court ordered the tenant to perfect the appeal within 60 days and pay $14,993 in arrears plus ongoing monthly rent, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which found that a tenancy was provided as part of an employment compensation package and ended when the employment relationship ended.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable and within its jurisdiction, and that no error of law was demonstrated.

The court also declined to stay the eviction order, noting that an application for a stay requires proper materials addressing the test for injunctive relief.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to repay illegally collected rent, arguing the leases were void under s. 50(3) of the Planning Act because the Residential Tenancies Act's automatic renewal provisions effectively created leases exceeding 21 years.

The tenants cross-appealed the Board's decision to limit their repayment to a one-year period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that statutory renewal does not trigger the Planning Act's subdivision control provisions, estoppel cannot override the RTA's prohibition on illegal rent, and the Board reasonably applied the one-year limitation period for collecting illegal rent.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent.

After failing to comply with an order by Wilton-Siegel J. to pay rent arrears, the appeal was dismissed by the Registrar.

The tenant obtained a stay and a peremptory hearing date before a full panel of the Divisional Court.

At the hearing, the tenant requested an adjournment, which was denied.

The court dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay, noting the tenant had filed no materials, continued to live in the premises without paying rent, and failed to comply with previous orders.

The self-represented appellant tenant requested an adjournment of his appeal because he had not received the hearing transcript and lacked assistance from an amicus.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting that a previous order had made the hearing date peremptory.

The Landlord and Tenant Board brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario.

The application sought to prohibit the Board from applying its rule 32, which gives adjudicators discretion to allow a legal representative to act as both an advocate and a witness.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding it plain and obvious that the application would fail because procedural fairness must be assessed in the specific context of a case, not in a vacuum.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring it to pay a rent differential to a former tenant who vacated due to a bedbug infestation.

The Board found that the landlord's failure to address the infestation in the common hallway substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment and induced him to move out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'induced' to include a failure to act was reasonable and consistent with the tenant protection objectives of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting them from a residential property.

The eviction was based on an N12 notice for a purchaser's own use.

The tenants appealed on several grounds, including that the LTB member erred in interpreting section 72 of the Residential Tenancies Act and violated procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit and intended to delay eviction, as the grounds were either baseless or impermissible appeals of findings of fact.

The motion to quash was granted and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a $50,000 substantial indemnity costs order made after the parties reached a consent resolution on a relief from forfeiture application.

The court found the costs order was interlocutory, as the underlying consent order did not finally dispose of the parties' rights.

Leave to appeal was granted because there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order, particularly regarding the motions judge's reliance on untested affidavit evidence, the characterization of the tenant as the successful party, and the awarding of costs against a corporate officer personally.

The court also found the proposed appeal involved matters of general importance regarding costs awards following settlements.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's implementation of smart metering for electricity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act in concluding that the landlord was entitled to increase rent for adding electricity as a prescribed service and that payments to an independent contractor were not illegal charges.

The court also held that the Board's findings on harassment and coercion were factual and raised no question of law.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board allowing the corporate landlord to terminate the tenancy for the occupation of the sole shareholder's mother.

The tenant argued the reasons were inadequate and that a corporate landlord could not rely on s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act for this purpose.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons adequate and confirming that the definition of 'landlord' includes the sole shareholder of a corporate landlord, permitting eviction for the shareholder's parent.

The moving party landlord sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board that ordered him to pay the responding party tenant $7,720.

The court applied the four-part test for extending the time to appeal.

The court found that the moving party failed to provide documentary proof of an intention to appeal within the time limit, offered a weak explanation for the delay, and raised an appeal of questionable merit given evidence that he likely had notice of the hearing.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with no costs.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him on the basis that the landlords required the basement unit for their daughter's use.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by accepting an affidavit from the landlord on behalf of the 15-year-old daughter, failing to determine good faith, and ignoring the tenant's disabilities and the landlords' alleged breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the affidavit acceptable given the daughter's age and concluding the Board had reasonably considered all other matters.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the unit in good faith for her own use.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant's motion to admit fresh evidence and rejected arguments that the Board failed to consider s. 72(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act or erred in its good faith analysis.

The appeal was dismissed, as the tenant failed to identify any error of law.