Landlord and Tenant - ONSCDC

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her after a cooking fire caused extensive damage to the residential complex.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence that the landlord illegally locked her out of the unit after repairs were completed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to permit evidence of the alleged lockout prevented it from considering all circumstances as required by section 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The eviction order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Board.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board evicting him from his basement apartment so the landlords' daughter could occupy the unit.

The tenant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Board refused a further adjournment after his lawyer withdrew, and that the eviction was in bad faith and part of a harassment campaign involving the RCMP.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's refusal to grant another adjournment given the history of delays, and holding that the tenant's other arguments raised questions of fact rather than questions of law.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy due to substantial rental arrears.

While the tenant met the criteria for intention to appeal and explanation for delay, the court found the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The tenant's arguments regarding the Board's failure to consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic under s. 83(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and alleged bias did not raise plausible errors of law.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion in the Superior Court of Justice seeking to appeal a case conference endorsement issued by a judge of the Divisional Court.

The appellant also requested an adjournment to submit new evidence of alleged fraud by the Landlord and Tenant Board, and argued he was not properly served with the respondents' motion materials because the email did not address him correctly.

The court denied the adjournment and found service was valid.

The motion was dismissed on the basis that a judge of the Superior Court has no jurisdiction under section 21 of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a case conference endorsement made by a judge of the Divisional Court.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that denied their request for an extension of time to review a consent eviction order.

The Divisional Court issued a notice that the appeal may be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the notice of appeal failed to identify any questions of law, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants did not file responding submissions.

The court dismissed the appeal, lifted the automatic stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating his occupancy in a non-profit housing co-operative for failing to pay regular monthly housing charges.

The appellant argued the LTB failed to address the co-op manager's non-compliance with bylaws and that the hearing was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB correctly restricted its inquiry to its limited jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any procedural unfairness during the hearing.

The appellant landlords appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision requiring them to pay $986.68 to their former tenants.

The landlords had failed to attend the initial hearing and their request for reconsideration was denied.

On appeal, the landlords argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the unit was a temporary lodging and alleged the adjudicator was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the adjudicator properly relied on the uncontested evidence before her and the landlords failed to provide a valid reason for their non-attendance.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order finding it had given a bad faith notice of termination and imposing a $10,000 administrative fine.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the landlord and tenants settled their dispute and agreed to set aside the Board's order.

The Board sought standing to participate in the appeal to defend the administrative fine.

The Divisional Court held that the Board could make submissions regarding the nature and purpose of administrative fines, balancing the need for fully-informed adjudication against maintaining tribunal impartiality.

On the merits, the court upheld the $10,000 fine, finding it served a public protection purpose to deter future violations and was not based on an error of law.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that declined to set aside an initial order finding she issued a bad faith N12 eviction notice.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because she did not receive notice of the initial hearing, as it was sent to an incorrect mailing address and to her email's spam folder.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence showing the LTB relied on an outdated lease, but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

The court held that the LTB's finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not monitoring her email, which she had authorized for service, was a question of mixed fact and law outside the court's appellate jurisdiction.

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his motion to set aside a noting in default in a slip and fall action brought by the respondent tenant.

The Deputy Judge had refused to set aside the noting in default, citing prejudice to the respondent who had already collected the default judgment funds by withholding rent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge erred in law by failing to apply the three-part test under Rule 11.06 of the Small Claims Court Rules, improperly ignoring a prior order that had set aside an earlier default judgment due to improper service, and considering irrelevant factors such as the respondent's premature garnishment and potential claims against third parties.

The noting in default was set aside and the appellant was granted leave to file a statement of defence.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they did not receive the Notice of Hearing and that the landlord's application was void for omitting a prior N12 Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determination regarding receipt of the Notice of Hearing was an unappealable finding of fact.

The court also held it was bound by prior precedent regarding the validity of the application.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision ordering eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant argued he was unable to pay rent due to injuries sustained when his apartment ceiling collapsed, which is the subject of a separate Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) personal injury claim.

Due to procedural errors by the tenant's counsel, the LTB did not adjudicate the merits of the rent abatement or stay request.

The Divisional Court upheld the LTB's findings on rent arrears but quashed the denial of abatement and stayed the eviction order, directing that the abatement and stay issues be determined by the SCJ alongside the personal injury claim to prevent injustice.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his applications regarding the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act and a claim for a rent rebate.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the applicability of the Act was res judicata due to a prior final order.

Furthermore, the Board correctly applied section 135.1(5) of the Act to validate a previously non-compliant rent increase because the tenant had paid it for over 12 months and the matter was not finally determined before the statutory deadline.

The court also dismissed the appellant's allegations of institutional bias.

The 90-year-old appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his 18-year tenancy for the landlords' own use.

The landlords sought possession so one of them could move in to care for his 94-year-old father.

The tenant argued the eviction was a reprisal for a bed bug complaint and raised issues regarding the notice of termination, relief from eviction, and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the notice issue was a question of mixed fact and law outside its jurisdiction, the LTB member properly exercised discretion under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act to delay eviction, and there was no evidence of procedural unfairness.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to lift a stay of eviction pending appeal.

The appellant tenant had failed to meet court-imposed deadlines for filing appeal materials and disregarded directions to pay ongoing rent.

The court found the tenant's actions amounted to an abuse of process and an attempt to game the system to live rent-free.

The motion was granted, the stay of the Landlord and Tenant Board order was lifted, and the tenant's request to reschedule the appeal hearing was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,400 to the responding party.

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

The court had previously directed the tenant to pay ongoing rent and make monthly payments towards rental arrears as a condition of maintaining the stay.

The tenant failed to make any payments towards the arrears, arguing that conflicting orders prevented them from doing so.

The court rejected this argument, finding no contradiction, and held that it would be an abuse of process to allow the tenant to continue living in the unit without paying the outstanding rent.

The motion was granted and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy and ordering eviction for rent arrears exceeding $67,000.

The court previously ordered the tenant to pay ongoing rent and make partial payments towards the arrears as a condition of maintaining the statutory stay of eviction pending appeal.

The tenant failed to make any payments and failed to perfect his appeal.

The court lifted the stay of eviction, finding the balance of convenience heavily favoured the landlord, and dismissed the appeal.

Following an appeal regarding lawful rent and temporary rent accommodations during the pandemic, the respondent tenant sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court noted that the tenant succeeded on one issue but conceded the second issue late in the proceedings.

Finding that success on the appeal was divided, the court declined to award costs to either party.