Landlord and Tenant - ODC

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

The court had previously directed the tenants to make a lump sum payment and monthly payments towards rental arrears to maintain the stay.

The landlord filed an affidavit confirming the tenants breached the direction by failing to make a required payment.

Given the large arrears, the tenants' failure to perfect their appeal, and the prejudice to the landlord, the court granted the motion and lifted the stay of eviction.

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

The court had previously directed the tenant to make specific payments toward rent and arrears as a condition of the stay.

The tenant failed to make the required payments and falsely claimed to have reached a new payment arrangement with the landlord.

Finding that the tenant failed to meet his obligations and attempted to mislead the court, the court granted the landlord's motion and lifted the stay of eviction.

The Landlord and Tenant Board terminated the appellant's tenancy for non-payment of rent and ordered his eviction.

The appellant appealed the decision and obtained a stay of the eviction order.

After the appellant failed to comply with an order to pay monthly rent and arrears, the court lifted the stay and ordered him to confirm his intention to proceed with the appeal by a specified date.

The appellant failed to comply with this condition, and the court dismissed his appeal.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order based on rent arrears, triggering an automatic stay of eviction.

The court ordered the tenant to pay ongoing rent and arrears as a condition of maintaining the stay.

The tenant failed to make the required payments.

The landlord moved to quash the appeal.

The court found the appeal lacked merit, was not brought in good faith, and was an attempt to game the system to live rent-free.

The appeal was quashed and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for delay and non-compliance with court directions.

The tenant had previously been granted an extension of time to appeal on the condition of making monthly payments.

The court found that the tenant had substantially complied with the directions, including making the required payments and taking steps to obtain transcripts.

The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion in writing to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board, citing the tenant's delay in pursuing his appeal.

Although the tenant had complied with a previous case management order to pay rent and arrears, he failed to perfect his appeal by the deadline or provide evidence of ordering transcripts.

The court granted the motion and lifted the stay of eviction due to the tenant's delay and failure to respond to the motion.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding rental arrears totaling $23,362.46.

The court issued a notice considering dismissing the appeal under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The tenant argued the appeal was not frivolous because it involved the Board rejecting his evidence regarding his ability to pay and proposed a structured payment plan.

The court found the appeal raised no question of law and merely sought to re-weigh findings of fact made by the Board.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of process.

The self-represented appellant sought to appeal an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant was evicted for violating an agreement to maintain the cleanliness of her unit and filed her appeal months late.

The Divisional Court provided procedural directions, explaining that the court can only hear appeals on questions of law and setting a timetable for the appellant to bring a motion for an extension of time to appeal.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and a subsequent order denying a review.

The Board found that the landlord required the rental unit in good faith for his own occupation and that the tenants failed to establish the existence of a three-year lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's factual conclusions were supported by evidence, including the landlord leaving his personal belongings in the unit, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in the Board's treatment of hearsay evidence.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision but failed to pay rent or rental arrears since October 2022, despite an undertaking to bring arrears up to date.

The tenant claimed inability to pay due to a slip and fall on the landlord's property.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable excuse for the failure to pay rent and dismissed the appeal as abandoned, awarding $5,000 in costs to the respondent landlord.

The appellant tenant, who suffers from a mental health disability, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her due to disruptive and threatening behaviour towards other tenants.

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly consider the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability under the Human Rights Code, failed to consider relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and denied her procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly determined that accommodating the tenant caused undue hardship to the landlord and other tenants, properly exercised its discretion regarding relief from eviction, and appropriately admitted and weighed hearsay evidence.

The landlord brought a motion for leave to issue a writ of possession to enforce a 2021 Divisional Court order evicting the tenant for rent arrears.

Enforcement had been delayed due to a COVID-19 eviction moratorium, and the enforcement office refused to execute the order, treating it as an expired writ of possession under Rule 60.10(3).

The Divisional Court held that the 2021 order was not a writ of possession and remained valid without a time limit.

Given the tenant's significant rent arrears and the equities of the case, the court granted leave to issue a writ of possession.

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

The tenant had refused the landlord access to the property, failed to pay rent since May 2021, and ignored a Board order to pay rent in trust.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit, did not raise questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed to delay eviction and avoid paying rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the automatic stay of eviction was set aside.

The appellant tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that one of the co-tenants was denied due process because her name was omitted from the ex parte eviction application and subsequent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the omission was a clerical error, the co-tenant had notice of the proceedings, and she suffered no prejudice.

The court ordered the eviction order amended to add the co-tenant's name nunc pro tunc.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Review Body denying her late request to review the loss of her rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidy.

The applicant lost her eligibility in 2019 for failing to provide required income and asset information, but did not request a review until over two years later.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Review Body met its duty of procedural fairness, which was at the lower end of the spectrum, and that its decision to deny the late request was reasonable given the applicant's failure to provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their applications for bad faith eviction and tenant rights violations.

The landlords had served an N12 notice for purchaser's own use, but title was ultimately taken by a corporation.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's finding that the landlords did not act in bad faith at the time the notice was served.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the tenant rights application on the basis of res judicata, as the issues could have been raised in a prior proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord's mother to move into the property.

The tenants challenged the Board's finding that the landlords required the unit in good faith for the mother's residential occupation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the finding of good faith and intended full-time occupancy were findings of fact, and the appeal raised no extricable question of law as required by s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him as an unauthorized occupant.

He argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused an adjournment, denied his request for human rights accommodation, and removed him from the virtual hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was the author of his own misfortune due to his disruptive behaviour and refusal to follow the adjudicator's directions.

The Court also found no errors of law in the Board's determination that the appellant was an unauthorized occupant rather than a tenant.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Toronto Community Housing Corporation RGI Review Body that refused to review her rent-geared-to-income calculations from 2010 to 2017.

The Review Body had determined that the request was beyond the 12-month deadline and did not meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances.

The Divisional Court found that the Review Body unreasonably interpreted its own rules by concluding that a hard 12-month cap applied even if exceptional circumstances existed.

The court also held that the Review Body fettered its discretion and failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusion that exceptional circumstances were not met.

The application was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment holding him liable for rent arrears and property damage.

The appellant had signed a residential lease for a friend but never occupied the unit.

He argued he was not a tenant, the lease was assigned, and the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was a tenant who failed to terminate the lease, and confirmed that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction over claims for arrears and damages when the tenant is no longer in possession of the rental unit.