Samuel David Lyman

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The landlords argued the appeal was an abuse of process because the tenant had not paid rent for 18 months and was using the appeal's automatic stay to remain rent-free.

The Divisional Court found that while the appeal raised potential questions of law, the tenant's persistent failure to pay rent and avowed intention to continue withholding rent constituted an abuse of process.

The court ordered the appeal quashed and the stay lifted unless the tenant paid all arrears by a specified date.

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 appellant tenants appealed a decision denying them a rent abatement after their apartment building's elevator was out of service for 96 days due to a latent defect.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had acted diligently and reasonably in maintaining the elevator and replacing it, and thus did not breach its duty to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's contextual interpretation of s. 20(1), which considered the reasonableness of the landlord's actions, was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.

The respondent landlord was successful on a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The landlord sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs to the landlord on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the appeal manifestly lacked substance and the tenant's conduct prevented the landlord from selling or living in the property.

Costs were fixed at $1,289.45.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order based on rent arrears.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness and the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate his cognitive health.

The Divisional Court found the tenant's grounds of appeal did not raise a question of law and were entirely devoid of merit.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's responsibility to maintain an elevator under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board was entitled to construe its home statute to consider the landlord's actions in the circumstances.

Finding no error of law, the court dismissed the appeal.

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.