Landlord and Tenant - SCJ

The Children's Lawyer brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss proceedings against a child defendant as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs, residents of a cooperative housing complex, had sued 37 defendants including several children, alleging various torts arising from disruptive behavior such as playing basketball, volleyball, and other common childhood activities in common areas.

The court found the claims against the child defendants to be frivolous and vexatious, lacking legal merit and constituting a misuse of court resources.

The court dismissed the action against Kingston Pitawanakiwat and, on its own motion, also dismissed claims against Gavin Spencer, Brooks Spencer, Deevan Ens, and Jaden Harrison.

A commercial tenant operating a pizza restaurant sought relief from forfeiture after failing to provide written notice to renew its lease within the required eight-month notice period.

The tenant had operated the business for 12 years, invested approximately $100,000 in renovations, and expressed its intention to renew to the landlord's property manager.

The tenant missed the December 31, 2024 deadline due to illness and inadvertence, but immediately sought to renew upon being notified of the missed deadline in February 2025.

The landlord had subsequently leased the premises to a neighbouring business.

The court granted relief from forfeiture, finding that the tenant exercised due diligence, acted in good faith, and that the circumstances warranted equitable intervention.

A self-represented applicant, previously designated as a vexatious litigant, sought leave of the court to bring various proceedings relating to disputes with his landlord and the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The applicant sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision, bring an application regarding a leaking air conditioning unit, and review how another application was being handled.

The court declined to grant leave, finding that the proposed proceedings had no prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process.

The court noted that while vexatious litigants retain the opportunity to advance legitimate claims, the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proposed proceedings.

The applicant mortgagee sought an order setting aside tenancy agreements entered into by the mortgagor with tenants at a residential property and sought leave to issue a writ of possession.

The court dismissed the application against two respondents (upstairs tenants) who had established a legitimate tenancy predating the mortgagor's default.

With respect to unnamed basement tenants, the court found insufficient evidence to satisfy the three-part test under section 52 of the Mortgages Act for setting aside a tenancy agreement.

The court declined to grant a writ of possession as section 48 of the Mortgages Act prohibits possession of rental units except in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act.

Instead, the court issued an order requiring the mortgagor and basement tenants to provide full particulars of the tenancy agreement by October 31, 2025, allowing the applicant to renew its application if appropriate.

The court awarded costs to the upstairs tenants.

A personal injury action arising from a 12-year-old plaintiff leaping from a balcony in community housing after an intruder forced his way into her apartment.

The defendants moved to strike portions of the statement of claim and to compel further production of documents.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleadings relevant to establishing foreseeability and duty of care.

The court granted the motion for further affidavits of documents but directed the parties to engage in collaborative discovery planning under Rule 29.1 before compliance.

No costs awarded due to divided success.

A creditor sought relief in a consumer proposal proceeding, including lifting the stay of proceedings to allow a Landlord and Tenant Board application to proceed, admitting his claim in full under section 135 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and obtaining a ruling that the debtor's claim should not be released from discharge.

The creditor alleged unpaid rent and property damage.

The court dismissed the motion to admit the claim under section 135, finding the LTB was the proper forum to determine the landlord-tenant dispute.

The court granted the motion to lift the stay to allow the LTB proceedings to continue, finding the creditor would be materially prejudiced without such relief and that it was equitable to do so.

The Landlord sought an order declaring that the stay of proceedings under section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) does not apply to the eviction provisions of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order, or alternatively, lifting the stay under section 69.4 BIA.

The bankrupt tenant opposed, arguing new maintenance issues.

The court found that the LTB order for possession is not a "claim provable" under section 121(1) BIA, thus the automatic stay did not apply to the eviction.

Alternatively, the court would have lifted the stay as it would not affect other creditors and the Landlord continued to incur expenses.

The motion was granted, and the Landlord was awarded costs.

The Landlord, Radice Management Services Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the Tenant, Alex Balm (wrongly named Alex Baum), for rental arrears and an order for possession.

The Landlord also sought to amend the title of proceeding to correct the misnomer.

The court granted the default judgment, finding the Landlord established liability based on deemed admissions.

Damages for outstanding rent and utilities were awarded, totaling $111,656.15.

The court confirmed its concurrent jurisdiction with the Landlord and Tenant Board under section 207 of the Residential Tenancies Act to award monetary damages exceeding the Board's jurisdiction and to grant orders for possession.

The court also allowed the amendment to correct the misnomer in the defendant's name.

Costs were awarded to the Landlord on a partial indemnity basis.

Home Trust Company (HTC) applied to set aside a residential tenancy agreement between the Landlords (Ahmad Mahmood and Shanaz Bigem) and the Tenants (Uzair Rashid and Aimen Rashid) for a property under mortgage.

The Landlords had defaulted on the mortgage, and the lease was entered into after default, with rent significantly lower than mortgage payments.

The court found that the lease was made with the object of discouraging HTC from taking possession or adversely affecting the property's value, satisfying the three-pronged test under section 52 of the Mortgages Act.

Despite the Tenants' unawareness of the Landlords' circumstances, the application was granted.

The tenancy agreement was set aside, possession was granted to HTC, and the Tenants were given until November 1, 2024, to vacate, with an order to pay outstanding rent to HTC.

The Landlords were ordered to pay HTC's costs.

The appellant tenant sought a stay of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) due to non-payment of rent.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal, considering whether there was a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that the appellant failed to raise a serious issue on a question of law, as her grounds of appeal primarily involved questions of fact (misapprehension of evidence, novation).

Furthermore, the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish irreparable harm beyond the inherent loss of a home in tenancy cases.

Considering the protracted nature of the dispute and the landlord's entitlement to resolution, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, concluding that it was not in the interests of justice to grant it.

A condominium corporation sought an urgent order for tenants to remove their dangerous dogs after one attacked a resident and her dog.

Despite prior court orders to remove the dogs and muzzle them, the tenants brought them back.

The court found the tenants in breach of multiple orders and determined they were unsuited for communal living, ordering the termination of their tenancy and their eviction from the unit.

This endorsement addresses compliance with a previous court order regarding rent payments and premises vacation.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached the order by contacting subtenants and sought an injunction.

The respondent claimed the applicant owed additional rent and credited subtenant payments received.

The court reaffirmed the terms of the prior endorsement, requiring the applicant to pay rent as due (less subtenant payments received by the respondent) and stating that failure to pay would release the respondent from their undertaking not to remove the applicant.

The court declined to hear the injunction request due to the lack of a formal motion and factum, noting potential issues with establishing irreparable harm.

Costs were reserved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment on two defaulted charges/mortgages and possession of the secured properties.

The defendants had defaulted on payments and failed to pay out the charges at maturity.

One defendant did not appear, and the other appeared but filed no materials, arguing only that refinancing was difficult due to marital separation and lack of cooperation from the co-owner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs for the outstanding debt and possession of both properties, and assessed costs.

The court clarified that obtaining a Writ of Possession for a residential rental unit requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Landlord (1617887 Ontario Ltd.) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a crossclaim by the Estate of Greg Campbell.

The crossclaim alleged the Landlord was liable for the plaintiff's injuries due to failing to ensure the tenant tavern (Jessie's Café Bar & Grill) had adequate insurance and for failing to manage/supervise the premises, after the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle driven by Greg Campbell following intoxication at the tavern.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the Landlord did not owe a duty of care to manage or supervise the tavern, nor to ensure the tavern had public liability insurance, as there was no proximity or causal connection.

The motion for summary judgment was allowed, and the crossclaim against the Landlord was dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim against the Landlord was also dismissed as they had agreed to release the Landlord.

The Landlord, Jing Yu Holdings Ltd., applied to the Superior Court of Justice to enforce an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board against the Respondent, Katelyn Ann Dallas Boudens.

The Board had ordered eviction due to Ms. Boudens and her fiancé keeping approximately 30 snakes, including pythons, in the apartment, which posed a serious safety threat to other tenants.

The Landlord sought enforcement despite a province-wide eviction moratorium due to the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing urgent and compelling circumstances.

The Respondent challenged the enforcement on grounds of natural justice, claiming she could not participate in the Board hearing and had sought a review.

The court found that the Respondent had not properly filed her request for review with the Board and that the Landlord had established urgent and compelling circumstances, including the safety risk posed by the unsecured snakes and threats made by the Respondent's fiancé.

The application to enforce the eviction order was granted.

The applicant landlord sought an urgent order to lift a province-wide eviction moratorium to evict the respondent tenant.

The tenant had defaulted on a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The landlord, a front-line hospital worker, required the unit for personal occupation after selling their own home, citing nowhere else to go and a need to self-isolate from elderly parents.

The respondent tenant did not file responding material or attend the hearing.

The court granted the landlord's application, finding that the landlord had established urgent and compelling circumstances, and the tenant failed to discharge the evidential burden to show adverse impact on societal interests by the eviction.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of an equitable interest in a residential property and other remedies.

The defendants denied the equitable interest and counterclaimed for rental arrears and damages for delay.

The court found an oral agreement for an equitable interest, which was later superseded by a written "Trust Agreement" settling the interest for a specific amount.

The court also found a valid landlord-tenant relationship.

The plaintiff's claim for the agreed-upon buy-out amount was granted, but not for a continuing co-ownership interest.

The defendants' counterclaim for rental arrears was granted in part, but damages for delay were dismissed due to shared responsibility for the delay.

The court issued additional reasons for judgment to quantify the amounts owed by the Applicant, McRae Cold Storage Inc., to the Respondent, Nova Cold Logistics ULC, under a commercial lease, following a previous judgment.

The undisputed amounts for energy surcharges, interest, and costs totaled $168,104.10, which were ordered to be released from trust.

The entitlement to holdover rent, totaling $212,199.09, remained contingent on the outcome of McRae's appeal of the original judgment.

The Landlord brought a motion to quash the Tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board termination order.

The Board had previously found the agreed-upon rent of $1,750, which included utilities, was lawful under s. 123(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and subsequently issued a termination order for non-payment of the $300 portion of rent.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law as required by s. 210 of the Act.

Alternatively, even if a question of law was extractable, it was manifestly devoid of merit, consistent with prior Divisional Court decisions affirming that utilities can be included in rent under s. 123.

The defendant Jade Antonson brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a subrogated claim by the plaintiff's insurer.

The insurer alleged that a fire, which destroyed the plaintiff's building occupied by the defendants as tenants, was caused by the negligence of the co-tenant Michael Joubert.

Antonson argued that the plaintiff could not prove Joubert caused the fire or that his actions were negligent.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that key facts were in dispute, necessitating a trial.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the fire's origin and the condition of an "ashtray" pail, which prevented a fair and just determination on the merits without a full trial.