Landlord and Tenant - ONSCDC

The landlords brought a motion to lift the stay pending appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

A previous court order required the tenants to make monthly rent and arrears payments as a condition of the stay.

The tenants failed to make the required payments and did not file responding materials to the motion.

The court lifted the stay, allowing the eviction order to be enforced, and set a deadline for the tenants to confirm if they intend to proceed with the appeal.

The tenant appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board granting the landlord an above guideline rent increase (AGI) for eligible capital expenditures related to window and door replacements.

The tenant argued the replacements were regular maintenance, his specific unit should not face an increase as his windows were not replaced, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Board's determination that the work constituted capital expenditures under the Residential Tenancies Act, and no breaches of procedural fairness.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending appeal.

The court had previously imposed conditions on the stay, requiring the tenant to pay monthly rent and specific amounts towards arrears.

The landlord provided evidence that the tenant failed to make the required payment for arrears and had not paid rent since August 2024.

The tenant did not respond to the motion.

The court accepted the landlord's evidence, lifted the stay, and permitted the sheriff to enforce the eviction order.

The landlord was previously successful on a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the tenant had issued the appeal solely to remain in the premises without paying rent.

The landlord sought costs of $10,746 on a substantial indemnity basis.

After considering the factors in Rule 57.01 and the tenant's failure to provide submissions, the court ordered the tenant to pay costs fixed at $8,500 inclusive.

The tenant sought leave to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order terminating her tenancy for rent arrears, arguing the order was invalid because it lacked a mandatory 'pay and stay' voiding clause under s. 74(3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that under s. 194 of the Act, parties can agree to settlements that contravene other provisions of the Act.

As the tenant consented to the order with the assistance of counsel and an interpreter, and there was no evidence of fraud or duress, the high threshold for appealing a consent order was not met.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the tenant a 30% rent abatement after the landlord removed a roof deck and offered a portion of a shared courtyard in exchange.

The landlord argued the LTB erred in law by finding this was a discontinuance of a facility rather than a mere change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB properly applied the relevant legal principles to assess the adequacy of the exchanged facility and made no error of law in concluding the roof deck's removal was an unreasonable discontinuance.

The moving party sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering eviction and payment of rent arrears.

The moving party required an extension of time to file the notice of appeal but failed to file the required motion materials by the court-ordered deadline.

As a result, the motion could not proceed, no appeal was pending, and the automatic stay of eviction was lifted.

Following the dismissal of the appellant landlord's appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The self-represented respondent sought over $800,000 in costs, while the appellant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent's costs claim was improperly advanced as a claim for damages.

However, recognizing that the respondent was successful and had to attend court, despite not filing responding materials, the court exercised its discretion to award the respondent a modest costs amount of $500.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy and ordering his eviction due to his cigarette smoking substantially interfering with another tenant's reasonable enjoyment.

The appellant argued procedural fairness violations, including the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, and that the Board erred in not granting relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 83 was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

The appellants, ten tenants of a mobile home park, appealed three Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decisions allowing the landlord's application to evict them to convert the property to non-residential use.

The tenants argued the LTB erred in law regarding the sufficiency of the N13 notices, the test for good faith, and the consideration of relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law, holding that the notices provided sufficient detail, the LTB correctly assessed the landlord's good faith intention to convert the land use, and the LTB adequately considered the tenants' circumstances before granting the eviction with a delayed enforcement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction for rental arrears, arguing he was the beneficial owner of the property rather than a tenant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's conclusion that a landlord and tenant relationship existed.

The court held that the Board's findings were rationally supported by the evidence, including text messages acknowledging the obligation to pay rent, and that the Board properly ascertained the true substance of the transaction.

The landlord brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board consent eviction order as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The tenant had accumulated significant rent arrears and failed to make payments under a negotiated schedule.

The tenant appealed the consent order, claiming economic duress and good faith efforts to secure funds.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the claim of duress lacked merit.

The court concluded the appeal was issued solely to allow the tenant to remain in the premises rent-free, and dismissed the appeal.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering a rent abatement to the tenant.

The tenant's unit was rendered uninhabitable by a fire caused by a neighbour, but the tenant continued paying rent until the tenancy was terminated by consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination that the landlord breached its maintenance obligations under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act was a question of mixed fact and law, over which the court had no jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the court held the LTB's decision to award an abatement was correct in law.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order requiring him to remove a canvas shed from his rental unit or face eviction.

The tenant argued the LTB made errors of law and that community rules did not apply to his single-family residence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determinations on retaliation and eviction delay were unreviewable questions of fact and discretion.

The court also held that because the housing complex contained land lease homes, it constituted a land lease community under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, giving the landlord authority to enact and enforce community rules prohibiting canvas sheds.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for the landlord's mother's personal use.

The tenant argued that the absence of a hearing recording and the Board member's curtailment of cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the affidavit evidence provided an adequate record for review, the Board member reasonably limited irrelevant questioning, and the Board properly considered the tenant's circumstances under s. 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the Board denied him procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment when he claimed to have a medical appointment in the U.S., and by relying on allegedly false evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the medical note lacked sufficient detail to justify an adjournment and there was no evidence the landlord's affirmed testimony was untrue.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order dismissing his request for review.

The landlord's application to evict the tenant for personal use had been dismissed because the property was owned by a corporation.

The tenant argued he was denied procedural fairness by not being allowed to make costs submissions at the initial hearing and that the Board erred in not awarding him costs due to the landlord's allegedly vexatious conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness since the tenant made written costs submissions on review, and no error of law in the Board's discretionary decision to deny costs.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the statutory stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending the tenant's appeal.

The tenant had failed to pay ongoing rent and lump sum arrears as previously ordered by the court, accumulating over $50,000 in arrears.

The court found it would be an abuse of process to allow the tenant to continue living rent-free and lifted the stay of eviction.

The court also granted the tenant a final 10-day extension to perfect his appeal due to delays in obtaining hearing transcripts.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that stayed his eviction and rental arrears application against three joint tenants after one tenant filed for bankruptcy.

The Divisional Court found the LTB adjudicator made an error of law and breached procedural fairness by incorrectly advising the landlord that the bankruptcy stayed the entire proceeding against all tenants, rather than just the bankrupt tenant.

The court allowed the appeal, converted the application to seek arrears only, and ordered the two non-bankrupt tenants to pay $35,000 in rental arrears.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that awarded the respondent tenant a rent abatement for harassment, failure to provide a parking spot, improper notice of entry, and failure to provide an exclusive mailbox.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the harassment, parking, and notice of entry issues, finding they were questions of fact not subject to appeal under the Residential Tenancies Act.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the mailbox, finding no statutory basis to imply an obligation on the landlord to provide one, and reduced the rent abatement by $200.