Samuel David Lyman

The landlord, White Spruce Apartments, brought a motion to quash an appeal filed by the tenant, Anne Deschenes, against an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The landlord argued that the appeal was clearly without merit and did not raise a question of law.

The tenant's grounds of appeal included procedural fairness issues, erroneous factual findings, and the landlord's failure to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

The court denied the tenant's adjournment request, finding that a responding affidavit was not critically important.

The court ultimately agreed with the landlord, determining that the appeal grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law, not law alone, and were devoid of merit.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56 in an action arising from a failed real estate transaction and subsequent landlord‑tenant disputes.

The self‑represented plaintiff alleged fraud and misrepresentation relating to a Seller Property Information Statement and sought extensive damages against the vendors and real estate agents.

The court found that the defendants met the threshold under Rule 56 due to outstanding unpaid costs awards and concerns that the action was frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff failed to prove impecuniosity or provide evidence supporting financial hardship.

Security for costs was therefore ordered, with different amounts depending on whether the plaintiff proceeded under the regular or simplified rules.