3 total
Appeal dismissed; Landlord and Tenant Board has authority to order reinstatement for unlawful eviction.
The appellant, a care home operator, unlawfully evicted a non-verbal adult with severe autism without following the procedures in the Residential Tenancies Act.
The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the tenant's reinstatement.
The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing procedural unfairness and that the Board lacked statutory authority to order reinstatement under s. 31(1)(f) of the Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and holding that a broad interpretation of the Act's remedial provisions permitted the Board to order reinstatement to protect vulnerable tenants from unlawful eviction.
Compensatory spousal support claim dismissed; child support, section 7 expenses, and equalization determined.
The parties separated after a 19-year marriage.
The respondent claimed compensatory spousal support, arguing he suffered economic disadvantage while the applicant pursued her master's degree, which led to a significant increase in her income.
The court dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no economic disadvantage to the respondent.
The court also resolved disputes over the children's primary residence for child support purposes, ordered pro-rata sharing of section 7 extraordinary expenses, and determined the equalization of net family property, noting the respondent's failure to disclose certain assets.
Interim joint custody ordered with week‑on, week‑off parenting schedule.
The father brought a motion seeking joint custody of the parties’ children on a week-on, week-off basis.
The mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing arrangement under which the children primarily resided with her and had daily contact with the father.
The court reviewed the parties’ post‑separation parenting history and found that the father had played a substantial caregiving role for approximately 18 months before the mother unilaterally reduced his weekday time.
The court concluded that the father’s proposed parenting schedule would provide greater stability and reduce daily transitions for the children, particularly in light of behavioural and adjustment concerns affecting one child.
An interim joint custody order with an alternating week schedule was granted.
