Landlord and Tenant - ONCA

The appellant, Jennifer Ricketts, sought a stay of eviction orders issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board and confirmed by the Divisional Court, pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal, per Lauwers J.A., granted the stay, finding a serious issue to be adjudicated, potential irreparable harm to Ms. Ricketts, and that the balance of convenience favoured her.

The decision discusses the test for a stay and the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in administrative proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed David Tweneboa-Kodua’s motion for leave to appeal an order lifting a stay of eviction, finding the court lacked jurisdiction.

The proper avenue to challenge the Divisional Court’s order was a motion before a panel of that court, not an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court found the motion frivolous and an abuse of process, and made no order as to costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed motions by tenants Michael Schram and Leslie Mitchell for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal regarding the termination of their tenancy and the dismissal of their action.

The court found that the proposed appeals lacked merit and that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The court also dismissed the request for a stay of eviction and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The appellant/tenant, Jeffrey Potofsky, brought a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal and for a stay of eviction orders issued by Charney J. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate an intention to appeal within the prescribed deadline or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The court also found significant prejudice to the respondent/landlord due to protracted non-payment of substantial rental arrears.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal was deemed meritless, and the criteria for granting a stay (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) were not met.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed the test for bad faith under s. 57(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (RTA) and the potential liability of purchasers in "own use" evictions.

The Landlord and Tenant Board (Board) and Divisional Court had erred by unduly narrowing the bad faith assessment to the landlord's knowledge at the time of notice and by failing to consider the purchaser's good faith.

The Court held that the Board must consider all relevant evidence, including events after the notice, and assess the good faith of both the landlord and the purchaser.

The appeal was granted, and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination.

This motion sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order terminating a residential tenancy agreement, ordering possession, and awarding significant arrears and costs.

The moving party, a tenant who had withheld rent for an extended period, argued confusion regarding the proper appellate court.

While the court acknowledged the moving party's intention to appeal and explanation for delay, it ultimately dismissed the motion due to the lack of merit of the proposed appeal and the moving party's conduct, which included blatant delay tactics and continued non-payment of rent.

This costs endorsement follows a prior decision where the Court of Appeal allowed the tenant's appeal in part, extending the lease due to government-mandated COVID closures without rent during the extension, but reaffirming the tenant's obligation to pay rent during the closure periods.

The court ordered the tenant (appellant) to pay $20,000 in all-inclusive costs for the appeal, reflecting the divided success.

No costs were awarded for the motions, action, and counterclaim, as both the landlord and tenant experienced mixed success in those matters, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The appellant, a live-in caregiver, appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of her judicial review application.

She sought special priority status for subsidized housing, arguing she was abused by her employer and financially dependent on them.

The Regional Municipality of Peel denied this, asserting the relationship was not familial and financial dependence ceased with employment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the Region's decision was reasonable, deferring to the administrative body's interpretation of "financially dependent" within the Housing Services Act, 2011, especially given the need to allocate scarce resources.

The Court found the Divisional Court did not err by providing additional context for the Region's decision.

The tenants brought an urgent motion for a stay of a Divisional Court order pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal and, if leave were granted, their appeal.

They also requested a transfer of their motions to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, concluding that the proper appeal route was to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, meaning there was no serious question to be determined by the Court of Appeal.

The court also declined to transfer the motions to the Divisional Court under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, despite acknowledging an arguable question of law regarding the termination notice, due to the significant prejudice suffered by the landlord from the tenants' failure to vacate and pay rent, which had already jeopardized one sale and threatened another.

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment dismissing claims for liability arising from the failure of a daycare business and for unjust enrichment.

The appellants alleged that the respondents caused the failure of their daycare enterprise and sought damages for losses.

The appellants also claimed unjust enrichment based on renovations made to the leased premises.

The trial judge found that the appellants failed to prove the respondents caused the business failure and that the appellants' testimony was less credible than that of the respondent.

The appellants were in default of four months' rent when the lease was terminated.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant leased commercial premises from the respondent with a right to renew for five years.

The appellant sublet the premises to a third party without reserving the last day of the head lease term.

When the appellant attempted to exercise its renewal option, the respondent claimed the appellant had forfeited its rights through an assignment.

The application judge failed to resolve this central issue and instead found a breach of contract with no damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 3 of the Commercial Tenancies Act permits a sublease even without reserving the last day of the head lease term, provided there is sufficient evidence that the parties did not intend an assignment.

The sublease language clearly demonstrated the parties' intent to preserve the appellant's renewal rights.

The appellant tenant and respondent landlord disagreed over the interpretation of their commercial lease on two points: whether the leased premises included a parking area owned by the City of London and licensed to the landlord, and whether the landlord's right to exclusive use of office space permitted the landlord to lease that space to a third party.

The application judge found against the tenant on both points.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision regarding the parking area but reversed on the office space issue, finding that the lease language clearly distinguished between "use" (reserved exclusively to the landlord) and "access or entry" (afforded to the landlord and invitees), and therefore the landlord could not lease the office to a third party.

Four tenants of cottage sites owned by Grant Lake Forest Resources Ltd. challenged significant rent increases imposed when their original tenancy agreements expired and were replaced with new agreements.

The landlord did not provide the required 90-day notice of rent increase under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the increases void and ordered repayment of excess rent.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

On appeal, the landlord argued that the new tenancy agreements constituted a new term of tenancy, exempting the increases from the notice requirements.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the notice provisions apply regardless of whether a new agreement is executed, as long as the parties and premises remain the same.

The appellant, a pizza restaurant operator, entered into a 10-year commercial lease but abandoned it within four months, claiming the premises were unsuitable.

The respondent landlord took possession, sued for damages, and obtained summary judgment for unpaid rent and prospective damages totaling $85,697.96, calculated on the basis of 22 months to re-let.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in awarding prospective damages without adequate evidence.

Before the appeal hearing, the premises were re-let approximately 10 months after the appellant's repudiation.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence of the re-letting and allowed the appeal, setting aside the damages award and remitting the matter for trial to properly quantify damages in light of the actual re-letting period.

The appellants, Smiles First Corporation and Union Health and Dental Centre Inc., appealed the dismissal of their application under section 21 of the Commercial Tenancies Act and section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The core dispute involved a head lease assignment dated October 31, 2016, from the intermediate tenant to Smiles First, and the effect of the intermediate tenant's subsequent abandonment of the head lease on Smiles First's sublease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the head lease assignment was ineffective due to lack of landlord consent, Smiles First remained entitled to possession of the premises as a subtenant under the sublease, which survived the head lease surrender.

A commercial tenant sought a declaration under the Commercial Tenancies Act that a landlord had wrongfully distrained its assets and equipment after terminating the tenancy by changing the locks, or alternatively that the distraint was excessive.

The application judge found that changing the locks did not terminate the lease because the tenant retained access to the premises during business hours and by arrangement after hours.

The application judge ordered a trial to determine whether the distraint was excessive, as the parties had not provided sufficient particularized evidence of the value of the distrained equipment or the exact amount of rent arrears.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that while a summary determination was possible on the lease termination issue, the parties had not presented sufficient evidence to determine the amount of rent outstanding, the value of the distrained goods, or any damages.

McDonald's appealed a Superior Court decision that terminated a commercial ground lease due to McDonald's failure to comply with the renewal provision.

The application judge found that because the parties had not agreed on a rental rate at least nine months before the lease expiry, McDonald's was obliged to either refer the matter to arbitration or revoke its renewal notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in concluding that North Elgin had properly revoked its waiver of strict compliance with the renewal provision.

The court held that the revocation lacked sufficient clarity and did not provide McDonald's with reasonable notice or an opportunity to cure the defect.

The appellant, a fitness club operator, appealed a judgment declaring it had lost its right to extend its commercial lease with the respondent landlord.

The application judge found the appellant had breached the lease by: (1) operating a fitness club at Park Road in violation of geographic non-compete restrictions; and (2) failing to calculate and report gross revenue in accordance with lease provisions for percentage rental payments.

The appellant was given notice to cure but failed to do so.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding or palpable errors in the application judge's interpretation of the lease, rejection of waiver and promissory estoppel defences, and refusal to grant relief from forfeiture.

A landlord leased land to a tenant for construction and operation of a driving range.

Upon the tenant's default in rent payments, the landlord terminated the lease and prevented the tenant from removing trade fixtures and chattels from the premises.

The tenant sued for damages for unlawful distraint and conversion.

The trial judge found the assets were trade fixtures and awarded compensatory and exemplary damages.

On appeal, the court upheld the finding of liability for conversion but set aside the exemplary damages award, finding it resulted in double recovery for the tenant.

A commercial tenant vacated leased premises and removed most furnishings and assets.

The landlord sought partial summary judgment under section 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act for twice the value of goods removed.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding the tenant and its principals liable.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge failed to properly apply the two-step analytical framework established in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge addressed the first step of the Hryniak analysis, he failed to address the second step regarding how factual disputes should be determined.

The court found genuine factual issues existed between the parties regarding whether the landlord had consented to the removal of assets, and the motion judge improperly resolved these conflicts based on credibility findings without proper consideration of the appropriate mechanism for resolving disputed facts.