Landlord and Tenant - ODC

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

The tenant had previously been ordered to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of the stay but failed to make any payments.

The tenant did not provide substantive submissions in response to the motion.

The court lifted the stay of eviction and awarded costs of $1,600 to the landlord.

The appellant appealed Landlord and Tenant Board orders finding he was not a member of the respondent housing co-operative and ordering his eviction.

The appellant had previously resigned his membership and his ex-spouse, the remaining member, had abandoned the unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal solely on the basis that the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict an unauthorized occupant (non-member) from a co-op, a point conceded by the respondent.

The appellant's other grounds of appeal, including claims regarding notice, membership status, and standing to challenge his ex-spouse's eviction, were dismissed.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that found the landlord did not unreasonably refuse to assign their lease to a family of five.

The LTB member had explicitly refused to consider whether the landlord's occupancy limits discriminated against the proposed assignees on the basis of family status under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB committed a serious error of law by failing to apply the Code when interpreting whether the refusal was 'arbitrary or unreasonable' under s. 95(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court articulated an adapted Moore test for assessing discrimination in lease assignments and remitted the matter to the LTB for a re-hearing.

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 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 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 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 tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for rent arrears.

The tenant had failed to pay rent for over a year and breached a court-ordered stay condition requiring ongoing payments.

Applying the Enbridge Gas test, the court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant failed to demonstrate a continuing intent to appeal, raised no meritorious questions of law, and caused ongoing prejudice to the landlord.

The stay of eviction was lifted.

The self-represented appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their application.

The appellants argued that the landlord's refusal to renew their residential lease for a one-year term constituted harassment under s. 23 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 38(1) of the Act, the non-renewal of a fixed-term lease automatically results in a month-to-month tenancy with full security of tenure.

The court also held that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence regarding the landlord's motivation, as the appellants' legal position was untenable.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order for delay.

The tenant had filed the appeal over two and a half years prior but failed to order the required transcripts or take steps to perfect the appeal after a related judicial review was dismissed.

The tenant did not attend the motion or file responding materials.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal for delay, finding no reasonable explanation for the failure to pursue the appeal.

The tenants sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to order a de novo hearing of their eviction applications.

The original LTB member had already conducted a consolidated hearing and determined that the landlord breached s. 83(3)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act by treating tenant union members differently during rent arrears negotiations.

The only remaining issue was identifying which specific tenants had made repayment proposals.

Before making this final factual determination, the member resigned.

The LTB subsequently ordered a de novo hearing without consulting the parties.

The Divisional Court held that ordering a de novo hearing in these circumstances, where the substantive legal issues had already been comprehensively decided, was a denial of procedural fairness.

The application for judicial review was granted, the original decision was reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the LTB solely to determine which tenants made repayment proposals.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, triggering an automatic stay.

The landlord sought an order requiring the tenant to pay outstanding rent arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of maintaining the stay pending the appeal.

The tenant argued that the landlord's claim to arrears exceeding the Board's monetary jurisdiction was extinguished under s. 207(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court ordered the tenant to pay the remaining $25,000 in arrears into trust and to continue paying regular monthly rent to maintain the stay, balancing the risks to both parties.

The tenant moved for a stay pending review of an order quashing her appeal and lifting the stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had failed to pay rent for approximately 30 months.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay and found no merit to the proposed review, as the tenant failed to raise a question of law.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the landlord.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him for the purpose of demolishing the rental unit.

The tenant argued the LTB breached procedural fairness by proceeding with the hearing after his lawyer left, leaving him self-represented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness because the tenant did not request an adjournment, participated appropriately in the hearing, and the LTB had no duty to inquire into his representation status.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence regarding the tenant's subjective state of mind and ordered costs to the landlord.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its application to evict the tenant and recover damages for a fire.

The Board found the fire was caused by a discarded cigarette butt from elsewhere, not by the tenant, which the Divisional Court held was an unappealable finding of fact.

Although the tenant breached the lease by failing to maintain liability insurance, the Board granted relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction for seriously impairing the safety of another person during a physical altercation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's challenges to the Board's evaluation of the evidence were questions of fact, not law.

The Court also held that the Board made no error of law in its analysis under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act, as it properly considered the circumstances of both parties before exercising its discretion to grant and briefly postpone the eviction.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an eviction order based on severe hoarding and fire hazards.

The tenant had failed to attend the original hearing, claiming she did not receive notice.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the Board's factual determinations regarding notice and the tenant's ability to participate did not raise any questions of law.

The court held the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

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 appellant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding she was not a tenant and the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply.

She argued the Board erred in law and breached procedural fairness by refusing to allow her to play audio recordings of a witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's evidentiary ruling was discretionary and not a breach of procedural fairness, as the witness was present at the hearing, gave oral evidence, and was available for cross-examination on any prior inconsistent statements.

The appellant brought a motion for interim relief pending her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that found she was not a tenant and dismissed her wrongful lockout application.

She sought an order permitting her to live in the rental unit pending the appeal or a stay preventing the landlord from re-renting the unit.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness, but denied interim possession due to the balance of convenience.

However, the court granted a stay prohibiting the landlord from re-renting the premises pending the expedited appeal.