Landlord and Tenant - SCJ

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful application for an order requiring the respondent to comply with its obligation under a commercial lease to provide audited statements and finding the respondent estopped from claiming rent prior to January 1, 2021.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant, applying Rule 49.10 costs consequences based on an unaccepted settlement offer.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's partial abandonment of certain relief claims warranted a reduction in costs, finding that the abandoned claims were no longer necessary once the respondent produced the required documents.

A residential tenant sued his landlord and pest control contractor for $600,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages arising from a bedbug infestation and alleged negligent application of insecticide.

The tenant also claimed $6,000 for an alleged unlawful security deposit and $7,170.01 for hotel stays and cleaning services.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the basis that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for claims under $35,000.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the tenant's maximum recoverable damages could not exceed the LTB's monetary jurisdiction.

The decision addresses a motion by landlords Juan Liu and Bobin Rui to lift the stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) in respect of their tenant, Leanna Mae Snaith, who had filed for bankruptcy after eviction orders were made against her.

The court reviews the procedural history, including the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) orders, review and appeal proceedings, and the bankruptcy filing.

The court finds that the eviction order is not a "claim provable in bankruptcy" and thus not subject to the stay, or, in the alternative, that the stay should be lifted under section 69.4 of the BIA due to material prejudice to the landlords.

The court also provides guidance on the interaction between residential tenancy law and bankruptcy, and addresses costs.

This decision resolves competing applications between a commercial landlord and tenant regarding the use of a basement in a leased property.

The landlord, Danica Schindler, sought to terminate the lease with DFIV Corp. for alleged breaches, including unauthorized use of the basement and installation of equipment.

The tenant countered that use of the basement was an implied term and that the landlord breached the lease by restricting access and failing to provide adequate HVAC.

The court found the lease did not include the basement, the tenant breached the lease by using the basement and installing equipment without consent, and the landlord was entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession.

The plaintiff, John Shane, sought damages from Ontario Aboriginal Housing Support Services Corporation (OAHS) for property damage caused by a fire in a rental unit leased to OAHS clients.

Shane claimed OAHS had orally agreed to cover all property damage caused by its clients, or, in the alternative, that OAHS was negligent in supporting the tenants.

The court found no oral contract existed, as there was no meeting of the minds or clear promise by OAHS to cover all damages.

The court also found no evidence of negligence by OAHS.

The claim was dismissed.

The court considered a request by Ontario to dismiss the application against it under rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application alleged that the applicant’s landlords breached his privacy, the lease agreement, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

As against Ontario, the claim was that Ontario failed to act on the applicant’s complaints about the rental premises and the conduct of the landlords.

The court found that the pleading did not identify a viable claim or duty owed by Ontario and made procedural orders, including a stay of the action and directions for further submissions.

The decision concerns a motion for summary judgment by the landlord, Parvaneh Ansari Ardabili, against tenants Norman J. Zak and Adina Zak for unpaid rent, utilities, and damages to a residential property.

The court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction, that the tenants owed $40,250 in unpaid rent at the original lease rate, and awarded additional amounts for utilities and damages, plus costs.

The court clarified the application of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding rent increases and the effect of not challenging increases within the statutory period.

The Landlords (Vince and Colleen Battista) brought a motion seeking 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 of the BIA.

The LTB order required the bankrupt tenant (Justin Evan Stevenson) to vacate the unit due to non-payment of rent.

The court found that the eviction provisions of the LTB order are not "claims provable" under section 121(1) of the BIA, and therefore the automatic stay does not apply.

Alternatively, the court would have lifted the stay as it would be just and equitable and would not affect other creditors.

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

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, induced breach of contract, and abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a landlord, sought damages after the defendant, a tenant, did not vacate a residential unit by the closing date of a sale, leading to the plaintiff's inability to deliver vacant possession.

The court, relying on the Residential Tenancies Act as a complete code, found that the plaintiff's claims as pleaded could not succeed because the defendant had statutory rights to remain until an eviction order was made, and the plaintiff had not pleaded that the defendant failed to abide by such an order.

The motion to strike the Statement of Claim was granted, but the plaintiff was given leave to amend.

The applicant, a mortgagee, sought judgment against the mortgagor for default and vacant possession of the mortgaged property.

While the mortgagor did not oppose the judgment and had vacated, a second respondent, Thomas Mullen, opposed the vacant possession order, asserting he was a residential tenant of a portion of the property under a "lease with option to purchase" agreement.

The court found that the agreement constituted a lease, as the condition for purchase (severance of the lot) was never met.

The court further determined that Mullen's occupation of the property, including a trailer and a Quonset hut used as a permanent residence for most of the year, qualified as a "residential complex" and "rental unit" under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Consequently, the applicant, as a mortgagee in possession, was deemed a landlord and was required to seek possession through the Landlord and Tenant Board, not the Superior Court.

The court granted judgment against the mortgagor for the outstanding debt but dismissed the application for vacant possession against Mullen due to lack of jurisdiction.

This motion concerned a dispute over a property where the applicant, the owner, sought an order for the respondent, a commercial tenant who also resided there, to vacate the premises and leave to commence a new application for damages.

The applicant argued the respondent was a trespasser due to a terminated lease and property damage.

The respondent argued the applicant's actions caused the damage and that the proper procedure for eviction under the Commercial Tenancies Act was not followed.

The court applied the three-part test for an injunction from RJR-MacDonald Inc., finding a serious issue but no irreparable harm if the respondent was not removed.

The court denied the request for the respondent to vacate and the leave to commence a new application, noting that the issues were already covered in existing consolidated applications.

However, the court ordered a plan for the applicant to access the property for necessary repairs, with the respondent and her son absent during work hours.

Costs were not awarded due to mixed success and poor party conduct.

The plaintiff landlord claimed $425,000 for breach of a commercial lease but was awarded only $5,719.37 at trial.

In this costs decision, the plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of over $73,000, arguing complexity and a lease clause.

The defendant argued it was the successful party, having offered a settlement close to the final award, and sought costs in its favour or no costs for the plaintiff.

The court applied Rule 57.05(1) due to the judgment being within Small Claims Court jurisdiction, finding the case not complex enough to warrant Superior Court costs.

The court also noted the plaintiff's unreasonable refusal of a reasonable settlement offer and the defendant's deficient offer.

Ultimately, the court exercised its discretion to order no costs to be paid by or to either party.

The applicants, a senior couple, sought to bring an urgent application for leave to evict residential tenants, despite a provincial moratorium on evictions, and requested the court to grant an eviction order.

The court declined to schedule the proposed application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an initial eviction order for residential tenants.

Such jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court clarified that its role under Rule 60.17 is limited to providing directions for enforcing an *existing* eviction order, not creating one.

The applicant, Eva Oppong, sought substantial indemnity costs following a successful application where her lease was declared valid and continuing.

The respondent, Desaro Holdings Inc., opposed substantial indemnity, arguing for partial indemnity or no costs.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs in the full amount claimed, totaling $21,784.82, finding that while the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity, the applicant should be indemnified for enforcing her legal rights.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture and return of leased premises.

The respondent landlord requested an adjournment, which was granted by the court.

The adjournment was primarily due to the lack of notice to a third-party tenant in possession and the need for potential further evidence regarding a contentious lease amending agreement.

The court set specific terms for the adjournment, including notification of the third party and a timetable for outstanding materials.

The applicant, Sunrise North Senior Living Ltd., brought an urgent application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of York to evict a respondent, Rohan Salmon, pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders.

The urgency was predicated on the Sheriff's position that the eviction order would expire on June 1, 2019, a point disputed by Sunrise.

The court, without deciding the expiry issue, renewed the eviction orders for one year to eliminate urgency and transferred the judicial review application to the Divisional Court for a full hearing.

The plaintiff, Aldgate Construction (1988) Limited, brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants, Noreast Foods Ltd. and its guarantor Zi Zhong Wu, for unpaid rent and breach of repair covenants under a commercial lease.

Aldgate sought damages of $105,356.88 and dismissal of Noreast's $1,151,421.99 counterclaim for alleged unlawful termination.

The court granted summary judgment in part for Aldgate in the main action, awarding $79,196.52, finding no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the breaches of lease and damages.

However, the court dismissed Aldgate's motion to summarily dismiss the counterclaim, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the lawfulness of Aldgate's re-entry and any consequential damages suffered by Noreast.

The court also specified undisputed material facts for the counterclaim to streamline the subsequent trial.

The applicant sought to terminate a commercial lease for a mixed-use property (convenience store with an apartment above) due to alleged defaults by the respondents, including unpaid rent, property taxes, lack of insurance, unauthorized room rentals, and failure to make repairs.

The respondents disputed the defaults and argued the residential portion was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court declared the entire property exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, under a single commercial lease, and found the respondents in default on rent, insurance, and room rentals.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act, imposing conditions for the respondents to cure the defaults by specific dates.

The defendants brought a motion to strike paragraph 7 of the plaintiffs' Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, arguing it improperly pleaded evidence and admissions contrary to Rules 25.06 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding that while the paragraph contained elements of evidence, it was material to the overall allegations of negligence, breach of contract, and bad faith, and served as necessary particularization, especially given the allegations of bad faith.

The Master emphasized that the mere inclusion of evidence in a single paragraph of a five-page pleading does not automatically constitute an abuse of process or warrant intervention, particularly when no prejudice to the defendants is demonstrated.

The decision also highlighted the importance of proportionality in litigation, noting that the motion would not materially advance the dispute towards its final resolution.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The respondent brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant corporation under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the applicant had ceased operations and had no assets in Ontario, satisfying the initial burden on the respondent.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of its assets or impecuniosity, particularly regarding access to funds through its shareholders, which is a high evidentiary threshold for corporate plaintiffs.

The court exercised its discretion, finding it just to order security for costs given the high probability that the respondent would be unable to collect costs if successful at trial.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was ordered to post $32,500 in security for costs and pay $7,500 in costs for the motion.