Robert George Doumani

The appellants, two cottagers' associations, appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that individual cottage sewage systems were subject to the Building Code Act rather than the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The central issue was whether the relevant "lot or parcel of land" for determining regulatory jurisdiction was the five registered parcels owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority or the individual cottage lots described in leases.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that "lot or parcel of land" means land that is legally recognized for municipal and planning law purposes and for which title can be conveyed.

Since the individual cottage lots were not formally severed or registered, the five registered parcels constituted the relevant "lot or parcel of land" bringing the collective sewage systems (exceeding 10,000 litres per day) under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment.

Following the dismissal of the tenants' appeals from Landlord and Tenant Board orders terminating their tenancies, the successful landlord sought costs.

The landlord claimed $6,257.85 from each appellant on a partial indemnity basis.

Taking into account the appellants' expectations and the significant overlap of work on each appeal, the Divisional Court fixed costs at $3,500 against each tenant individually, all inclusive.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Divisional Court order dismissing their appeals from Landlord and Tenant Board decisions that terminated their tenancies.

The moving parties were tenants in a rental property subject to demolition and redevelopment.

The responding party provided them with temporary relocation units at reduced rent pending completion of replacement units, with the understanding they would vacate once the replacement building was ready.

The moving parties refused to vacate and sought relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding no serious question to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The court also applied the clean hands doctrine, noting the moving parties had acted in bad faith by refusing to honor their relocation agreement.

The appellants, residential tenants, appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies and denying relief from eviction.

The tenants had been temporarily relocated to other units owned by the landlord during the redevelopment of their original building, pursuant to a s. 37 Planning Act agreement.

When the new building was ready, the tenants refused to vacate the temporary units.

The Board found this substantially interfered with the landlord's lawful rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness, the eviction notices were valid, and the Board reasonably concluded that the agreement to terminate the temporary tenancies did not violate s. 37(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The applicants appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to refuse a building permit for an already constructed 21-room building, which they labelled as a "single family dwelling" but was designed and previously operated as a hotel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the CBO was entitled to look beyond the label and consider the building's design, layout, and prior use to determine its intended purpose.

The CBO's conclusion that the building contravened applicable zoning by-laws for a single-family dwelling was deemed reasonable and correct.

The Regional Municipality of Halton appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision that overturned its new development charges by-law.

The new by-law eliminated distinctions between unit sizes, which the Board found resulted in smaller units unfairly subsidizing larger ones.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably applied the Development Charges Act and had sufficient evidence to find cross-subsidization.

The Board's decision to reinstate the former by-law's categories was a reasonable exercise of its remedial authority.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for misrepresenting income, permitting illegal acts, and impairing the safety of others after police found loaded handguns belonging to her boyfriend in her unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct civil standard of proof and had sufficient circumstantial evidence to conclude the tenant knew about the guns and the occupant's presence.

The Court also held that the 'best interests of the child' test does not apply to the Board's relief from eviction analysis under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Regional Municipality of Halton sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that overturned two provisions of its Development Charges By-law.

The Board had excluded capital costs incurred by Conservation Halton and reinstated six categories of residential development instead of the four adopted by the Region.

The Superior Court denied leave to appeal regarding the Conservation Halton costs, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 5(3) of the Development Charges Act was not open to serious debate.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal regarding the development categories, finding serious debate over whether the Board had the authority to impose its view of fairness and reasonableness without finding non-compliance with the Act.

The landlord appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting rent rebates to three tenants of cottage sites.

The landlord argued that applying the security of tenure provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act would extend the 20-year leases beyond 21 years, thereby contravening the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act and rendering the leases void.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was bound by its previous decision in Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp., which held that the rent control provisions of the RTA applied to similar land leases.

The court declined to address the potential conflict between the RTA and the Planning Act as the landlord had not sought to overrule Matthews or requested a five-judge panel.

Following the dismissal of an appeal under the Building Code Act, the successful respondents sought costs.

The appellant argued no costs should be awarded or they should be limited to $10,000.

The Divisional Court found no reason to depart from the general rule that successful parties are entitled to partial indemnity costs, but found the amounts sought excessive.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 to the Township and Kopp, and $7,500 to Lystek.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to repay illegally collected rent, arguing the leases were void under s. 50(3) of the Planning Act because the Residential Tenancies Act's automatic renewal provisions effectively created leases exceeding 21 years.

The tenants cross-appealed the Board's decision to limit their repayment to a one-year period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that statutory renewal does not trigger the Planning Act's subdivision control provisions, estoppel cannot override the RTA's prohibition on illegal rent, and the Board reasonably applied the one-year limitation period for collecting illegal rent.

The appellant challenged the validity of a municipal bylaw imposing fees for cutting pavement and digging up highways.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to meet the onus of clearly demonstrating that the bylaw was beyond the municipality's powers, noting that the relevant regulation allows for the recovery of costs for issuing such permits.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

A natural gas distributor applied to quash a municipal by-law imposing a pavement degradation fee on entities excavating city roads, arguing the fee was ultra vires under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and O. Reg. 595/06.

The applicant contended the fee impermissibly targeted gas distributors, was unrelated to permit issuance costs, and improperly related to the transportation of natural resources.

The municipality argued the fee formed part of a broader regulatory scheme governing road excavation and utility cuts and was authorized as a permit-related charge.

The court applied a broad and purposive interpretation of municipal powers and held the fee was reasonably connected to a regulatory scheme managing road infrastructure and excavation permits.

The application to quash the by-law was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board ordering a 10% rent abatement for 53 tenants due to alleged failure to maintain the building and interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board member's reasons were conclusory, lacked transparency, and failed to analyze the statutory requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a re-hearing solely on the issue of the landlord's obligation to repair.

The appellant tenant entered into an agreement to rent an apartment and paid a deposit equal to one month's rent.

Six weeks before taking possession, the appellant repudiated the agreement and sought the return of the deposit under s. 107(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord refused and retained the deposit.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 107(1) does not grant an automatic return of a deposit when a tenant unilaterally repudiates the agreement.

However, the court ordered the return of the deposit in this case because the landlord's rental application contained an illegal forfeiture clause and the landlord improperly treated the deposit as a penalty rather than security for rent.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing her application for the return of a rent deposit.

After signing a rental application and paying a deposit, the tenant unilaterally decided not to sign the tenancy agreement or take possession of the unit.

The Divisional Court held that s. 107(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, which requires a landlord to repay a rent deposit if vacant possession is 'not given', applies only when the landlord refuses or is unable to provide the premises.

Because the tenant's own repudiation prevented her from taking possession, she was not entitled to the return of the deposit.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal, the court addressed the disposition of the $15,000 costs awarded by the Divisional Court to the respondent.

The court applied the general rule that when an appeal is allowed, the order under appeal is set aside and costs below are awarded to the successful appellant.

The appellants were awarded $15,000 in costs for the Divisional Court proceedings.

The appellants leased land from the respondent's predecessor and built cottages used as year-round secondary homes.

The respondent sought to significantly increase rent and replace the leases with licences.

The Landlord and Tenant Board and the Divisional Court held that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply because the premises were used for recreational purposes.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the cottages were 'living accommodation' used as 'rented residential premises' and that the Act applies regardless of whether the premises are used for recreational purposes or as a secondary residence.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision quashing a by-law that authorized a licence agreement for a jet boat tour operator to use a municipal dock.

The application judge had found the by-law contravened the Planning Act because the use did not conform to the Official Plan's 'Conservation' designation and was not a legal non-conforming use.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the jet boat operation was a legal non-complying use under the Official Plan, as it was lawfully established by a prior by-law before the Plan was adopted.

The Court also found the licence agreement was not an unlawful disposition of land and did not create an illegal monopoly.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, raising issues regarding whether an occupant was a tenant and whether there was a deemed assignment of the tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the determination of whether the occupant was a tenant was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the Board's finding that the landlord failed to apply for eviction within 60 days of discovering the unauthorized occupancy, resulting in a deemed assignment under s. 104(4), was a finding of fact that could not be challenged.

Costs of $750 were awarded to the respondent.