Rob L. Winterstein

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring it to pay a rent differential to a former tenant who vacated due to a bedbug infestation.

The Board found that the landlord's failure to address the infestation in the common hallway substantially interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment and induced him to move out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation of 'induced' to include a failure to act was reasonable and consistent with the tenant protection objectives of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant franchisee appealed the dismissal of its action against the respondent franchisor for breach of the statutory duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The appellant argued that the franchisor failed to provide sufficient disclosure regarding a right of first refusal for a new restaurant location, specifically concerning the final lease terms and the size of the exclusive territory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the franchisor acted in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner, and that the appellant's decision to pass on the location was an informed one based on its own financial position and lack of confidence in the landlord.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to pay the tenant $11,000 for disposed property and $3,000 for stress damages following an eviction.

The Divisional Court upheld the property damages, finding ample evidence that the landlord breached its obligation under s. 41(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 to make the tenant's possessions available within 72 hours.

However, the court set aside the $3,000 award for stress damages, as it was not claimed by the tenant and awarding it without notice breached procedural fairness.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the defendants' bills of costs, making reductions for excessive trial preparation time and for the defendants' failure to properly produce relevant documents before trial, which had necessitated a two-day adjournment.

Total costs of $784,276.99 were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant tenant sought an order requiring the Landlord and Tenant Board to produce a transcript of the proceedings before the Board as part of its obligation to file the record with the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the request, clarifying that under Rule 25.2 of the Board's Rules of Practice, the Board is only required to provide a recording of the proceedings.

If a party wishes to rely on the evidence, it is their responsibility to arrange and pay for a professional transcription of the recording.