Landlord and Tenant - ODC

The landlord sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found he had illegally evicted the tenant following a flood.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for an extension, finding that the proposed appeal lacked merit because it only challenged the Board's findings of fact regarding whether the tenant had abandoned the unit, whereas appeals under the Residential Tenancies Act are restricted to questions of law.

The tenants brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) that dismissed their motion to void a prior eviction order.

The LTB argued that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from an interlocutory LTB decision.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no statutory provision in the Residential Tenancies Act or the Courts of Justice Act conferring such jurisdiction.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the tenants were directed to pursue their remedies at the LTB.

The tenants appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that terminated their tenancy for non-payment of rent and awarded partial rent abatements for maintenance issues.

The tenants argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act, failed to find serious breaches by the landlords that would preclude eviction, and exhibited bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Board's conclusions were reasonable, the tenants were not entitled to self-abate rent, and the minor errors alleged did not warrant interference.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Board's order, and remitted the motion for an extension of time back to the Board to be heard in a procedurally fair process.

The moving party landlord brought a motion without notice to renew a writ of possession for a residential unit.

The responding party tenant had been evicted by the Landlord and Tenant Board for failing to pay rent and owed over $44,000 in arrears.

The court found that notice to the tenant was not required for a motion to extend the writ, and given the significant arrears and high demand for subsidized housing, granted the motion to renew the writ for one year.

The tenant brought a motion to set aside an earlier endorsement that lifted a stay of eviction, arguing he was not served with the notice of motion.

The landlord claimed he served the notice personally, but this was inconsistent with his earlier email to the court stating a notice of motion was not required.

The court set aside the earlier endorsement, reinstating the stay of eviction pending appeal, and set an expedited timetable for the appeal.

The tenant appealed five separate Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders to the Divisional Court, obtaining automatic stays of eviction.

The tenant failed to perfect the appeals, order transcripts, or pay rent and arrears as directed by the court.

The court found the tenant was abusing the court's process to delay eviction while profiting from subtenancies.

Two appeals were dismissed as abandoned, and the remaining three were quashed for delay and abuse of process.

The stays of eviction were lifted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the landlords.

Following the successful motion to quash the tenant's appeal as an abuse of process, the landlord sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,264.74.

The tenant made no submissions on costs.

The court noted the tenant's conduct lengthened the proceedings but also recognized that some additional time was related to the tenant's requests for accommodation due to mobility issues.

The court reduced the requested amount and ordered the tenant to pay costs of $13,000 to the landlord.

The landlord moved to lift the stay of an eviction order granted by the Landlord and Tenant Board pending the tenants' appeal.

The tenants had failed to pay monthly rent and accumulated substantial arrears.

Despite court directions, the tenants did not provide evidence of rent payments or dispute the arrears, instead alleging the landlord was unreasonable.

The court found the tenants were abusing the statutory stay to live rent-free and lifted the stay of eviction, ordering the tenants to advise if they intend to pursue the appeal or face dismissal.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying a request to review a set aside order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the grounds raised were either not responsive to the record or challenged findings of fact and exercises of discretion, which are not permitted under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the tenant fully participated in the hearings and never requested an adjournment or accommodation.

The appellant, a self-represented tenant living in a commercial unit, sought an interim stay of a writ of possession pending her appeal of the application judge's decision.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously determined the tenancy was commercial, not residential.

The respondent landlord faced municipal fines for zoning violations due to the appellant's residential use of the commercial property.

The Divisional Court found the appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried regarding procedural fairness, but granted a brief extension of the stay until April 21, 2023, to allow the appellant more time to vacate, balancing her personal circumstances against the landlord's need for compliance.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord to demolish the rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board erred in finding the landlord took all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary demolition permit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding was one of fact or mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the court found the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in determining that only the demolition permit, not a building permit, was relevant, and that vacant possession was required to obtain it.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy for rent arrears, which they had subsequently voided by paying the required amount.

The tenants argued the Board erred in calculating the arrears and failing to account for previous costs awards owed by the landlord.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenants' arguments raised factual issues rather than questions of law, which are required for an appeal under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

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

The tenant argued the Board failed to properly consider evidence of reprisal and prior notices.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the tenant's grounds of appeal merely challenged the Board's factual findings and assessment of evidence, which do not constitute extricable questions of law under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant appealed several Landlord and Tenant Board orders terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent.

The tenant had previously agreed to a consent order to pay arrears but failed to do so on time, leading to an ex parte eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or procedural unfairness in the LTB's refusal to set aside the eviction order.

The court held that the LTB properly considered the tenant's circumstances and balanced the rights of both parties under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the LTB proceeded with the hearing in their absence after they requested an adjournment.

The Divisional Court found the LTB followed its own rules, as the tenants failed to provide evidence supporting their adjournment request prior to the hearing.

The court also upheld the LTB's refusal to admit a doctor's note as fresh evidence on reconsideration, noting it lacked sufficient detail.

The motion to quash was granted and an eviction date was set.

The tenants appealed from interlocutory orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing that their notice of appeal automatically stayed the proceedings, including a review of an eviction order.

The Divisional Court held that section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not confer a right of appeal from an interlocutory order, and therefore the appeal did not stay the proceedings.

The court also found that the tenants were not denied procedural fairness, as they deliberately chose not to attend the review hearing.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants (tenants) appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

At the hearing, the self-represented appellant requested a two-week adjournment.

The Divisional Court denied the request, noting that the date was peremptory, previous adjournment requests had been denied, and the appellant had failed to comply with directions to file materials despite numerous accommodations.

As the appellants filed no materials to support their appeal, the appeal was dismissed.

The stay of the eviction order was lifted, with eviction delayed until May 1, 2022, and costs of $3,500 were awarded to the landlord.

The appellant tenant sought an adjournment of his appeal from a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment peremptory to the appellant, setting strict deadlines for perfecting the appeal and filing materials.

The court ordered that if the appellant fails to perfect the appeal by the deadline or is more than one day late in paying monthly rent, the respondent landlord may bring an ex parte motion to quash the appeal.

No costs were awarded for the appearance.

The moving party sought to review an order of a single Divisional Court judge that dismissed her request for interim relief to be restored to leased premises pending her appeal.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously found she was not a tenant.

The Divisional Court panel held that the motion judge applied the correct legal test for interim relief, made no palpable and overriding error of fact, and reasonably balanced the interests of the parties by expediting the appeal and prohibiting the landlord from re-leasing the premises.

The motion to review was dismissed.