Samuel Mason

The landlord appealed an LTB decision dismissing his application to evict the tenant and convert the unit to commercial use.

The LTB had found the landlord failed to obtain necessary permits and did not act in good faith, having served the eviction notice the same day the tenant won a previous LTB application declaring the unit residential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LTB's factual finding that the eviction notice was not served in good faith, as it was an attempt to undo the tenant's prior success.

The tenant appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board which allowed the landlord's eviction application for the purpose of her son's residential occupation.

The tenant argued the eviction was in retaliation for reporting a lead paint issue to Public Health.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by confusing whether the good faith intention required under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act needed to be that of the landlord or the landlord's son.

The Board's failure to distinguish between the landlord and her son also infected its analysis of the mandatory refusal provisions under s. 83(3).

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlords' application to terminate the tenancy for demolition.

The tenant argued the planned work was a renovation, which would afford a right of first refusal to re-occupy the unit, rather than a demolition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB applied the correct legal test for demolition and that the tenant's arguments amounted to an impermissible attempt to reargue findings of fact.

The eviction was delayed due to the tenant's personal circumstances.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying his motion to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant had signed an agreement to terminate his tenancy in exchange for compensation but later argued he did so under duress and due to misrepresentations by the landlord's agent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to consider the evidence of misrepresentation and the landlord's good faith as required by sections 77(8) and 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The eviction orders were set aside.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.