Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The self-represented tenant moved for a six-month extension of time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal a Superior Court order and her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The landlord opposed, citing extensive delays and previous extensions.

Applying the test for extending time, the Divisional Court found that while the delay was significant, the tenant's difficult personal circumstances and the lack of severe prejudice to the landlord justified a final extension.

The court granted an extension to September 1, 2016, but dismissed the tenant's requests for consolidation and case management.

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

The tenant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because his name was misspelled on the application.

The Divisional Court held that the misnomer was a procedural matter, not a question of law, and that the appeal was devoid of merit.

The court quashed the appeal, lifted the automatic stay, and directed the sheriff to enforce the eviction order.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his application for a rent abatement on the basis that he was not a tenant.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to recognize evidence of an implied tenancy agreement, including the appellant's payment of rent and residence in the unit for over two years with the landlord's knowledge.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a new hearing before a different member.

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

The tenant argued he was a purchaser in interim occupancy, not a tenant, challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The court declined to quash the appeal, finding an arguable question of law.

Balancing the hardship to the landlord's pending third-party sale against the tenant's loss of his home, the court granted the tenant a brief final opportunity to secure financing to purchase the property, failing which the stay would be lifted.

The landlord brought an unsuccessful motion to quash the tenants' appeal from an eviction order.

The tenants sought costs of the motion.

The court found that the landlord acted unreasonably by pursuing the motion when it knew the eviction order was based on the false premise that the tenants' complaints to government officials were unfounded.

The court awarded costs to the tenants in the amount of $17,337.71, reflecting the actual hourly rates charged by their counsel, which were lower than the maximum partial indemnity rates.

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

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness and the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate his cognitive health.

The Divisional Court found the tenant's grounds of appeal did not raise a question of law and were entirely devoid of merit.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a 2009 Landlord and Tenant Board decision that resulted in his eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the five-year delay was unreasonable and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a continuous intention to appeal.

Furthermore, the delay caused prejudice to the respondents, and the proposed grounds of appeal raised questions of fact rather than questions of law as required by the legislation.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board which found that he had abandoned his rental unit.

The Board had concluded that rent was in arrears because the September 2010 rent cheque was paid by a third party rather than the tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Residential Tenancies Act permits rent to be paid on behalf of a tenant by a third party.

Since the rent was paid, the statutory precondition for abandonment was not met, and the matter was remitted to the Board to determine a remedy.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his request for a review of an eviction order.

The tenant had failed to attend the initial hearing and requested a review, citing a substance abuse problem as the potential reason for his absence.

The Board dismissed the review without holding a hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached the principles of natural justice by failing to conduct a further inquiry or hearing into the tenant's reasons for non-attendance, particularly given the quasi-constitutional status of the Human Rights Code.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new review hearing.

The tenant was successful on a motion for a stay pending appeal and sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The landlord argued for a lower amount.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted, as there was no deliberate attempt to frustrate proceedings by fraud or deception.

However, the landlord's failure to comply with a previous order and the introduction of unnecessary complexity were considered.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court fixed costs payable to the tenant at $7,500 all inclusive.

The respondent Co-Op's motion to dismiss the appeal was previously dismissed, and the self-represented appellant was awarded costs.

The appellant sought $1,635.00 in costs.

The court assessed the claimed out-of-pocket expenses, including babysitting and replacement worker costs, allowing only those incurred after the motion was served and splitting expenses related to a joint hearing date.

Costs were fixed at $300.00, payable at the conclusion of the appeal and subject to set-off.

The appellant sought to vary an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that quashed her appeal and judicial review regarding her eviction from a co-operative housing unit.

The underlying proceedings were quashed because the appellant failed to comply with a prior order requiring her to pay monthly rent and produce documents related to her claim for a rent subsidy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to vary, finding no error in the single judge's decision and noting the appellant's persistent failure to pay rent or comply with court orders.

The appellant, a residential tenant, sued her landlord in Small Claims Court for negligence after her unit was burglarized via an adjacent unlocked unit.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the action, finding the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, confirming that the claim essentially alleged a breach of the landlord's statutory obligations regarding safety and quiet enjoyment.

The court also refused to transfer the matter to the Superior Court, as the one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act had already expired when the Small Claims action was commenced.

The landlord brought a motion to lift a Certificate of Stay and dismiss the tenant's application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had sought judicial review instead of appealing the Board's decision.

The Divisional Court lifted the stay, finding it was improperly issued by the Registrar, and quashed the judicial review application because the tenant failed to exhaust his statutory appeal rights under the Residential Tenancies Act and the application lacked merit.

The appellant, an occupant of a residential unit, appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating the tenancy.

The Board had accepted the consent of the named tenant to terminate the tenancy, finding that the appellant was not a party to the application.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board committed a reversible error of law by denying the appellant procedural fairness.

Under section 187(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, the appellant was a person directly affected by the application and should have been accorded party status.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application for arrears of rent related to an air conditioning charge.

The LTB Member had relied on a previous decision involving the same landlord but a different tenant to find the charge invalid.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Member erred in applying issue estoppel because the parties and the specific issues were different.

The matter was remitted back to the LTB for a re-hearing before a different Member.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a Small Claims Court order, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful respondents sought costs despite their counsel acting on a pro bono basis.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments against awarding costs in pro bono cases, applying Court of Appeal precedent that costs awards are appropriate and necessary for successful pro bono litigants to ensure access to justice.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs of $2,557.

The appellant tenants filed an application alleging a bad faith eviction by the respondent landlord.

The one-year limitation period under the Residential Tenancies Act ended on a holiday weekend, and the tenants filed on the next business day.

The Landlord and Tenant Board dismissed the application as untimely, finding it had no discretion to extend the limitation period.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the Board's decision was unreasonable, as statutory computation of time rules extend deadlines falling on holidays to the next business day.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The landlord moved to quash the tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenants for persistently failing to pay rent.

The landlord claimed $11,200 in outstanding rent, while the Board advised that the tenants had paid $5,600 into the Board for a separate application.

The court found that the appeal was not clearly devoid of merit on the limited materials provided.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash on strict terms, ordering the tenants to pay $5,600 in arrears and $1,600 in ongoing monthly rent, failing which the landlord could move without notice to dismiss the appeal and lift the stay.

The applicants, cottage owners in Rondeau Provincial Park, sought a declaration that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 applied to their land leases with the Crown, thereby invalidating a regulation terminating their leases in 2017.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application as it involved the validity of a regulation.

On the merits, the court held that the Residential Tenancies Act does not expressly bind the Crown, nor does the benefit/burden exception apply.

Consequently, the regulation terminating the leases was valid and the application was dismissed.