Landlord and Tenant - ONSCDC

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent and dismissing his applications.

At the hearing, the Board granted the landlord's motion to remove the tenant's representative and subsequently denied the tenant's request for an adjournment to obtain new representation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment under the circumstances was arbitrary and constituted a denial of natural justice.

The matter was remitted to a different member of the Board.

The tenants appealed a Tribunal decision finding they committed an "illegal act" under s. 62(1) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, related to drug activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment pending the tenant's criminal charges.

The Court also held there was sufficient evidence of an illegal act and that the Tribunal properly considered how drug activities negatively affect the community's character and reasonable enjoyment.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissing his application against the landlord for harassment and coercion.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application on a non-suit motion by the landlord's agent, finding the tenant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the tenant was denied procedural fairness and natural justice because he was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the non-suit motion or call his remaining witnesses.

The Court also found the Tribunal Member misapprehended the evidence regarding intimidation and failed to control the abusive conduct of the landlord's agent.

The Tribunal's order was quashed and a new hearing directed.

The landlords appealed an order of the Tribunal regarding the calculation of rent.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to attribute the cost of renovations made by the tenants to the amount of rent payable, as defined in the Tenant Protection Act.

Despite the lack of a transcript due to an inaudible recording, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and fixed the legal monthly rent at $3,000, requiring the tenants to pay arrears.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed their request for an extension of time to file a Request for Review.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which constituted a denial of procedural fairness and an error of law.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to a different Member for a new hearing.

The tenants appealed an eviction order issued by the Tribunal based on noise complaints.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal's decision was based entirely on findings of fact regarding the tenants' interference with the reasonable enjoyment of other tenants.

As appeals under the Tenant Protection Act are confined to questions of law, the court quashed the appeal, reinstated the eviction order, and set aside the automatic stay.

The appellant appealed a judgment evicting her from her co-operative housing unit and ordering her to pay rent arrears.

She argued the trial judge failed to exercise his discretion under s. 171 of the Co-operative Corporations Act to refuse the eviction, alleging she relinquished her rent subsidy due to misrepresentations by the co-operative's board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's fact-finding and no error in principle in his exercise of discretion to grant the eviction.

The respondent co-operative brought a motion to quash the applicant member's application for judicial review of a decision to terminate her membership and occupancy rights.

The court held that the Co-operative Corporations Act provides an adequate and appropriate alternative forum for challenging eviction decisions, offering extensive protections including a hearing before the Superior Court of Justice.

Finding no basis that judicial review would provide a better avenue of relief, the court granted the motion to quash the application.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering her eviction for allegedly assaulting another tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's application, finding that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and failed to properly consider relief from eviction under s. 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The Court noted the tenant's lack of prior history of violence, her success in the related criminal proceeding, and her responsibility for four minor children.

The tenants appealed a decision regarding a rent decrease related to property taxes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the tenants' constitutional issue due to lack of an evidentiary record and failure to provide proper notice to the Minister of Justice under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the Tribunal erred in initially dismissing the landlord's application based on a delay in filing evidence, as the delay was caused by the City and did not prejudice the tenants.

The tenant appealed a Tribunal decision, arguing that pertinent evidence regarding bad faith was ignored.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that bad faith is a question of fact and an appeal lies only on a question of law.

The court found it was open to the Tribunal to find no bad faith on the evidence as a whole.

However, the court ordered the landlord to refund $900 in rent paid for April.

The appellant tenant appealed orders of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal concerning a residential property.

Prior to the appeal, the property was sold to a third party and the tenant relocated to a different property by agreement with the landlord.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal was moot because the tenant no longer inhabited the subject premises.

The appeal was dismissed as moot with no order as to costs.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed a motion to set aside an eviction order.

The Tribunal had found that the N11 agreement to terminate the tenancy was made voluntarily and without fraud, duress, or misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and noting that the Tribunal had properly considered the substance of the transaction and all surrounding circumstances.

The appellant tenant, who suffered from schizophrenia, appealed an eviction order issued by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The respondent landlord had issued notices of termination due to the tenant's screaming and disruptive behaviour.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the Human Rights Code.

The Court held that the Tribunal is bound to consider whether a disabled tenant can be reasonably accommodated without undue hardship to the landlord before exercising its discretion to evict under the Tenant Protection Act.

The eviction order was set aside on terms that the tenant's family be notified to intervene if disruptive behaviour occurs.

The appellant church appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting the co-defendant full indemnity for a $5,700 claim by the plaintiffs.

The co-defendant had operated a nursery school on the appellant's premises under an oral commercial lease and sought to transfer the lease to the plaintiffs upon selling the business.

The appellant provided a letter consenting to the transfer, which the co-defendant relied upon to complete the sale, but the appellant later terminated the lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was not patently wrong in allowing the indemnity claim based on the co-defendant's detrimental reliance on the consent.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dissolving an ex parte injunction that had restored it to its commercial premises after a lockout.

The motion judge had dissolved the injunction on the basis that the tenant failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, specifically regarding its status as a single-purpose holding company and its inability to abide by an undertaking.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion in enforcing the high onus of complete disclosure on ex parte motions.

The tenant brought a motion to vary an order that set conditions for his appeal, specifically the requirement to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent.

The tenant had not paid any arrears and his appeal had previously been dismissed for non-compliance.

As the tenant continued to refuse to pay the arrears he admitted were owing, the Divisional Court found no merit in the motion and dismissed it, awarding costs to the landlord.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenants a rent abatement for the discontinuance of storage lockers.

On appeal, the landlord introduced fresh evidence showing the lockers had been replaced, making the discontinuance temporary.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, terminating the ongoing rent abatement effective May 1, 2003, pursuant to s. 30(5) of Ontario Regulation 194/98, but awarded costs to the tenants because the appeal arose from the landlord's failure to adduce evidence initially and its subsequent change of position.

The appellant, a mortgagee in possession, sought to terminate a fixed-term residential tenancy before the end of the term in order to sell the property.

The appellant served a 60-day notice of termination pursuant to the Mortgages Act and the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Tenant Protection Act's requirement that a fixed-term tenancy only be terminated at the end of the term prevailed over the Mortgages Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a mortgagee in possession cannot terminate a fixed-term tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence was readily available at the time of the original hearing and that the tenant had chosen not to call available witnesses.

Furthermore, the court held that the fresh evidence would not have been conclusive of the issue, applying the test from Sengmueller v. Sengmueller.