Richard Fink

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs against the respondent tenants.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to order the costs payable on a joint and several basis, instead directing that each respondent tenant pay an equal share of the total costs award.

The appellants appealed a tribunal decision allowing a rent increase based on capital expenditures.

The tribunal had found the expenditures were not 'unreasonable' under s. 138(7) of the Act.

The Divisional Court held that the tribunal applied a legally flawed and overly narrow definition of 'unreasonable' by limiting it to non-arm's length transactions or frivolous expenditures.

The court also found the tribunal erred by ignoring the landlord's potential double recovery from coin-operated laundry machines.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a re-hearing.