Landlord and Tenant - ONSCDC

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of an order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal requiring her to vacate the premises.

The tenant had orally agreed to move out but subsequently changed her mind and remained in possession, prompting the landlord to obtain an ex parte order.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal raised no question of law as required by s. 196 of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, noting that s. 188 dictates substance over form.

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

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The court declined to award costs to the successful respondent co-operative, citing the appellant's difficult financial circumstances and the respondent's failure to cooperate with the City to enable the appellant to obtain a housing subsidy.

The court also rejected the respondent's request for costs against the appellant's solicitor personally.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants leased summer resort lots within Rondeau Provincial Park from the Crown.

The leases expressly restricted the use of the premises to recreational purposes and stated that the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 did not apply.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, arguing that the Act bound the Crown by necessary implication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not bind the provincial Crown and that the cottages do not constitute residential units within the meaning of the Act.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal based on allegations of assault and causing a disturbance.

The tenant, who suffers from schizophrenia, argued the Tribunal failed to consider her disability and the landlord's duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

Due to an indecipherable audio recording, no transcript of the Tribunal hearing was available.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing, holding that the absence of a transcript made it impossible to determine whether the Tribunal had properly considered the tenant's disability and the landlord's duty to accommodate.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the Tenant Protection Act applied to a trailer park site rented by the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to exhaust their internal remedies, including a statutory right of appeal on a question of law and a right to request a review by the Tribunal.

The Court also found no error of law on the face of the record, as the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine whether the Act applied.

The tenant appealed a Tribunal decision regarding her ability to reasonably participate in a proceeding and a motion to set aside a default order.

The Divisional Court found the appeal to be moot.

Applying the Borowski factors, the court declined to hear the appeal, concluding that the issue was not of public importance requiring prompt resolution.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $1,500.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant argued that the application for vacant possession for the purchasers' own use was improper, that he was denied the right to call certain witnesses, and that the application was made in bad faith.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's grounds did not raise any valid questions of law, as the statute permits possession for purchasers' own use, the evidentiary rulings were not errors of law, and good faith is a question of mixed fact and law.

The appeal was quashed and the stay of the eviction order was vacated.

The landlord brought a motion to transfer the tenants' appeal of an eviction order from Brampton to the Toronto Divisional Court.

The tenants had appealed the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal's eviction order, which automatically stayed the eviction, but they failed to pay ongoing rent or arrears.

The court granted the motion to transfer the appeal.

Furthermore, the court ordered on its own motion that the tenants must pay rent arrears and ongoing rent within 15 days, failing which the stay of the eviction order would be lifted.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering rent reductions for two tenants due to their inability to use their balconies during a restoration project.

The Tribunal had rejected the landlord's proven costs and instead based the reduction on the 'value' of the balconies, awarding a 10% rent abatement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal breached natural justice by adopting a new interpretation of the regulation and calculating value without giving the parties an opportunity to call evidence or make submissions on that issue.

The matter was remitted to a different Tribunal member.

The tenant gave notice to terminate his residential tenancy, and the landlord subsequently accepted a rental application from a new tenant.

The tenant later requested to delay his departure, which the landlord refused, obtaining an ex parte order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant's motion to set aside the order was denied by the Tribunal.

The tenant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, misapprehension of fact, or wrongful exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in refusing an adjournment or denying discretionary relief.

The self-represented appellant tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal.

The respondent landlord argued the evidence was not fresh but rather evidence the tenant had unsuccessfully tried to adduce before the Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence did not meet the established test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which held that the landlord substantially interfered with the tenants' reasonable enjoyment by changing secondary locks installed by the tenants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in focusing on the ownership of the locks rather than whether the landlord had consented to the alteration of the locking system under s. 23 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the issue of consent for each individual tenancy.

The tenants appealed an eviction order issued by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal after the male tenant verbally assaulted and threatened the building superintendents while intoxicated.

The tenants argued the Tribunal erred by admitting an unsworn statement from a witness who was not summoned to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no defect in the notice of termination and holding that the unsworn statement was admissible at the Tribunal's discretion under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tenant Protection Act.

The tenant appealed an eviction order, arguing the adjudicator erred in finding the landlord required possession of the premises in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue of good faith is a question of fact, and appeals to the Divisional Court under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 are restricted to questions of law.

The landlord appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the termination of a residential tenancy.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's notice did not comply with s. 47(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, and the Tribunal Member erred in law by finding the landlord's Form N4 terminated the tenancy.

Instead, the Court concluded that the parties had reached an agreement to terminate the tenancy, which was finalized when the tenant delivered the keys and the landlord's representative accepted them.

The appeal was allowed in part, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting an eviction for landlord's own use.

A previous application had been dismissed because the landlord was a corporation, which cannot occupy a residential unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator on the second application erred in law by failing to apply res judicata and failing to consider whether the individual respondent was a privy of the corporate landlord.

The adjudicator also failed to weigh evidence of bad faith.

The eviction order was set aside.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting an eviction order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence, applying the Sengmueller test, and upheld the tribunal's exercise of discretion under section 84 of the Act.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which found her claim for damages against the landlords was res judicata.

The tenant had previously sought damages for missing stored possessions, but the Tribunal initially ruled it lacked jurisdiction under the former wording of the Tenant Protection Act.

Following a legislative amendment clarifying jurisdiction, the tenant brought a fresh application, which the Tribunal dismissed on the basis of res judicata.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law in applying res judicata and that its rigorous application would be unfair given the uncertainty in the law at the material time.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to be heard on the merits.

The landlord moved for an order requiring the tenant to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent into court pending the tenant's appeal of a tribunal order.

The tenant had received a 5% rent abatement but appealed seeking a further 5%, while conceding that rent was owing and withholding payment.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding it unjust for the tenant to remain in possession while arrears accumulated, and ordered the tenant to pay the arrears and ongoing rent into court, failing which the stay would be lifted and the appeal quashed.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order and the subsequent refusal of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to re-open a review hearing.

The tenant had failed to attend the initial review hearing because he was hospitalized for psychiatric care.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's refusal to consider the tenant's medical inability to attend constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Court extended the time to appeal the original order, set aside the order denying the review request, and ordered a rehearing.