Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that their residential complex was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under section 5(a).

The Board had concluded the accommodation was occupied for a seasonal or temporary period within a resort vacation establishment.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no error in the Board's application of the exemption, noting it correctly followed precedent regarding multi-season temporary occupancy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing an application for harassment.

The Board member found the appellants were not tenants, and alternatively, that they were not harassed.

On appeal, the appellant argued the member erred in finding they were not tenants, but raised no argument regarding the harassment finding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the member erred on the tenancy issue, there was no error of law in the dismissal of the application because the harassment finding was unchallenged.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for prospective rent after the tenant vacated the unit pursuant to a Notice to Terminate a Tenancy Early.

The tenant had been noted in default.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness by the Deputy Judge in requiring the landlord to prove liability.

The court further held that under the Residential Tenancies Act, when a landlord serves a notice of early termination and the tenant complies by moving out, the tenancy is terminated and there is no common law remedy for prospective rent.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an eviction order, arguing she was the true owner of the property and the landlord held legal title due to fraud.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal did not raise a question of law under s. 220 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, but rather sought to re-litigate factual findings.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence, noting it merely attempted to contradict the Board's factual findings, which the court could not review.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding rent arrears.

The Registrar issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The appellant acknowledged the underlying eviction issue was moot because she paid the arrears, but asserted she should be entitled to the costs of the appeal.

The court held that seeking costs on a moot appeal is not frivolous or vexatious, and directed the appeal to be listed for a hearing solely on the issue of costs.

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

The tenant had accumulated significant rent arrears and failed to perfect his appeal or pay rent since the termination order was made.

The court found that the notice of appeal raised no arguable grounds and was filed solely to delay eviction and allow the tenant to live rent-free.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed as an abuse of process, and the stay of eviction was set aside.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside or vary an order of a judge that had quashed his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01(3) considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the motion merely repeated arguments previously found to be devoid of merit and raised no question of law, the court dismissed the motion as an abuse of process.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering him to pay $25,000 in compensation for disposing of the tenant's property after an eviction.

The tenant had been incarcerated, and his parents attempted to pay rent, but the landlord refused payment and ignored their communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the landlord's conduct constituted an abuse of process was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to grant an extension of time to request a review of an earlier order.

The earlier order awarded the respondent tenant compensation for lost property and rent abatement following an eviction without notice.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice because he did not receive notice of the hearing, as the documents were served on his paralegal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that service on the legal representative was proper under the Board's Rules and the Board's refusal to extend time was reasonable.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the respondent landlord an above-guideline rent increase based on capital expenditures for balcony repairs.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by failing to properly determine if the expenditures were necessary to restore physical integrity, failing to provide adequate analysis, and failing to apply issue estoppel based on a previous 2012 application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, as it properly applied the legal test, made factual findings that the work was different from the previous application, and adequately supported its conclusion that the repairs were necessary eligible capital expenditures.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her application for $200,000 in damages for substantial interference with quiet enjoyment and harassment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was fact-driven and raised no issue of law.

The court also dismissed the landlords' request for a vexatious litigant order, noting that such an application must be brought before a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to dismiss the applicant tenant's appeal for delay.

The applicant had previously sought relief from forfeiture after the respondent terminated the commercial lease for unpaid rent, but the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a notice of appeal but failed to perfect the appeal within the required time.

Applying the factors for an extension of time to appeal, the court found no explanation for the delay, prejudice to the respondent who was not receiving rent, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for delay.

The respondent landlord was successful on a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The landlord sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs to the landlord on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the appeal manifestly lacked substance and the tenant's conduct prevented the landlord from selling or living in the property.

Costs were fixed at $1,289.45.

The appellant appealed an eviction and rent arrears order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board, as well as a subsequent order upholding it on review.

The appellant argued she was a member of the housing co-operative, not a tenant, and that she had obtained money orders for the rent which were never cashed.

The Divisional Court found that the respondent's agent engaged in sharp practice at the review hearing by misrepresenting the appellant's position and the resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

The Court set aside both orders due to breaches of procedural fairness and natural justice.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing its application to evict a tenant who had smoked in his unit for 22 years.

A neighbouring tenant had vacated due to the cigarette smoke and odour, which the landlord was unable to remedy despite various efforts.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to consider the landlord's ongoing statutory obligation under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the complex fit for habitation for future tenants.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a re-hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The moving party sought to set aside an order quashing his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

He argued that the Board's consent order was invalid because his former counsel forced him to accept the settlement under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the counsel's firm legal advice did not amount to duress at law and that there was no unfairness in the prior proceedings.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his applications as vexatious and finding he had abandoned the rental unit before the landlord changed the locks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction is limited to questions of law under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the tenant failed to identify any error of law.

The Board had ample evidence to conclude the applications were vexatious and to reject the tenant's credibility regarding alleged rent payments.

The tenants brought an application for judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order.

The tenants had previously agreed to vacate the premises by a specified date in exchange for the landlords waiving $3,500 in rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the record inadequate to understand the tribunal proceedings and noting that judicial review is a discretionary, equitable remedy.

The court held it would be inequitable to grant relief because the consent order substantially reflected the tenants' agreement.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding a $90,000 rent deposit.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that the deposit was voluntary and therefore not 'required' under section 106 of the Residential Tenancies Act, meaning there was no contravention of section 135.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that section 106(6) requires interest to be paid on the deposit, calculated on the monthly declining balance.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision regarding a landlord and tenant dispute, raising an issue of estoppel based on a 2012 final order concerning the description of the premises.

The Divisional Court found the issue to be hypothetical and, applying the doctrine of mootness from Borowski, declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no order as to costs.