ONSCDC 2024

The self-represented applicant sought leave to appeal a procedural order that required her to retain counsel for her late husband's estate and herself.

The applicant refused to comply with previous court orders, insisting she did not need counsel and that the estate was not involved.

The court ordered the applicant to retain counsel, comply with previous costs orders, and pay $1,000 in costs for the unnecessary case conference.

The court also raised concerns about the applicant's abuse of fee waivers and invited submissions on whether her fee waiver should be cancelled.

The applicant tenant sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting him for non-payment of rent.

The applicant admitted to not paying rent but alleged a vast conspiracy by the Federal Government and others to sabotage his life, seeking $30 billion in damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed appeal lacked merit, raised no error of law by the Board, and sought relief unavailable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The estate trustees appealed a decision finding the deceased's grandson to be a dependant and ordering the transfer of the deceased's home to him as support.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of dependency, noting the deceased provided shelter, moral guidance, and some financial support to the vulnerable grandson.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the issue of remedy, finding the application judge failed to consider the deceased's testamentary intentions regarding the family home.

Instead of transferring the property, the court ordered a monetary award of $152,000 to be paid from the estate.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that a 17-month pandemic rent reduction became the lawful rent under s. 111 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The landlord argued the arrangement was a rent deferral, not a discount, and sought $15,000 in arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed this ground of appeal, holding that the Board's conclusion was a factual finding unreviewable on appeal and that the landlord failed to document a deferral agreement.

However, the court quashed a portion of the Board's decision that improperly ruled on the current rent, as the tenant had been paying the original rent plus increases for over a year, triggering the limitation periods in ss. 135.1 and 136.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision finding that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum for their fraud claim.

The appellants argued the claim was based on omissions occurring in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's conclusion that France was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing its unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing.

The complaint alleged that the respondents improperly applied a local collective agreement over a provincial agreement in the construction industry.

The Divisional Court held that the application was not premature despite the applicant's failure to seek reconsideration from the Board.

However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Board had reasonably concluded that the two collective agreements could co-exist, that inquiring into the complaint served no labour relations purpose since the affected employer did not participate, and that the declaratory relief sought was of limited practical utility.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision dated February 28, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,436.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Mills J. dated September 23, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as abandoned, without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal a lower court decision, to admit fresh evidence, and for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence and the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellants, a corporate landlord and its principals, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order awarding the respondent tenants compensation for a bad faith eviction.

The appellants argued the LTB erred in finding they acted in bad faith when serving an N12 notice of termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 48(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act, an N12 notice is only available to individual landlords, not corporations.

The court found no error of law in the LTB's application of the statute or its findings of fact regarding the failure to occupy the unit.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting them for nonpayment of rent.

They argued the Board denied them procedural fairness by deciding service issues before hearing arguments on the nature of the tenancy, and that the Board misinterpreted section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in finding they were joint tenants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that determining service first was procedurally fair and that the appellants' statutory interpretation arguments were actually unappealable disagreements with the Board's factual findings.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting the tenants a $10,000 rent abatement for maintenance issues, including mould and leaks.

The landlord argued the Board breached procedural fairness by not allowing cross-examination of the tenant and erred in admitting hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably controlled its process, the landlord had ample opportunity to present his case, and the Board was statutorily permitted to admit hearsay evidence and order the abatement.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order that removed the respondent as a party to a rent arrears application.

The LTB had found the respondent vacated the unit before September 1, 2021, and was therefore not a 'tenant in possession' under section 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act, depriving the LTB of jurisdiction over him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB applied the correct legal test for possession and its application of that test to the facts was a question of mixed fact and law, which is not subject to appeal under section 210(1) of the Act.

Following the dismissal of the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, the tenant sought the return of $1,350 he had deposited with the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice.

The court found that the funds were paid towards ongoing rent and arrears that the tenant was legally obliged to pay.

The court ordered the funds, plus any accrued interest, to be paid to the landlord.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to her relationship with the respondent.

The appellant claimed she lived in the unit and shared a kitchen, which would exempt her under s. 5(i) of the Act.

The Board accepted the respondent's evidence that the appellant did not live on the premises.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding no error in the Board's assessment of the evidence or its refusal to admit fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying benefits for neck and left wrist injuries and reducing benefits for non-cooperation with a work transition plan.

The applicant argued the Tribunal was biased and ignored his evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence and its decisions were reasonable.

The court noted that disagreement with the Tribunal's findings does not establish bias or unreasonableness.