Landlord and Tenant - SCJ

A landlord sought damages against a tenant and personal guarantors for breach of a commercial lease at 530 Yonge Street, Toronto.

The tenant defaulted on rent payments beginning in February 2020, and the lease was terminated in September 2023.

The court determined damages for unpaid rent to the end of the lease term, accounting for mitigation efforts through re-leasing portions of the space.

The court awarded total damages of $2,097,249.16 including mitigation costs and HST, plus interest at 12.20% per annum and legal costs of $24,921.86.

A commercial tenancy dispute concerning a restaurant lease that expired on December 12, 2024.

The tenant failed to exercise a contractual renewal option by the required deadline of six months prior to expiry (June 2024).

The tenant sought relief from forfeiture to compel renewal of the lease for another five years.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tenant made no diligent efforts to comply with the renewal option and failed to provide written notice as required by the lease.

The court held that relief from forfeiture is not available where the loss of the lease is consequential to the tenant's own failure to exercise contractual rights.

The City of Toronto sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over the property, assets, and undertaking of Harry Sherman Crowe Housing Co-operative Inc. due to operational, financial, and governance challenges.

The court addresses the Receiver’s motion for approval of its activities, fees, and a proposed process (RFEIQ) for identifying and qualifying future board members to transition the Co-op out of receivership.

The court approves the Receiver’s activities and fees, and partially approves the RFEIQ process, requiring further reporting and court oversight before any subjective vetting of board candidates.

The applicants, owners of a Toronto condominium unit, sought an order for possession against the respondent, who had remained in the unit rent-free since May 2020 after the expiry of a short-term rental agreement.

The respondent claimed a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, but the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) found no tenancy existed.

The court denied the respondent’s repeated adjournment requests, found no proper appeal or stay, and held that the applicants were entitled to possession, compensation for unpaid rent, and costs.

The respondent was found to be a trespasser, not a tenant.

The plaintiff, Avi Berger, moved to stay a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) application pending the outcome of his Superior Court action, in which he claims a beneficial ownership interest in the property at issue.

The defendant Sammie Millis, the current owner, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the LTB has sole jurisdiction over tenancy and eviction matters, and that the Superior Court action regarding beneficial ownership can proceed independently.

The court found no special circumstances to warrant a stay and held that granting one would be unjust to the landlord.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) order that found the tenant’s use of parking spot 69 was an implied term of the lease and denied the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy.

The Superior Court upheld the LTB’s decision, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) allows for implied terms and that the LTB properly considered the pattern of conduct and statutory context.

The landlord’s argument that the lease allowed for unilateral reallocation of parking was rejected.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Mark Varnam, brought a motion to set aside a noting in default, default judgment, and garnishment obtained by the plaintiff, Touranto (Canada) Holdings Limited, for rental arrears and damages.

Varnam argued he had a plausible excuse for default due to disabilities, being self-represented, lack of access to files, and pandemic-related business impacts, and that he had an arguable defence including payments made and Touranto's lack of cooperation with government assistance applications.

The court granted the motion, finding that Varnam provided a plausible explanation for his default and demonstrated an arguable defence, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice for self-represented litigants and that default proceedings should not be used for tactical advantage.

The appellant, Kweku Kuffuor, brought a motion seeking to transfer files and obtain a Divisional Court number, which was effectively a request for a further extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision from November 2022.

Despite a previous extension granted by Justice H.J. Williams in August 2023 with explicit instructions, the appellant failed to comply, instead bringing multiple inappropriate motions and disregarding procedural requirements.

The court found no evidence for the appellant's claimed medical illness and noted his failure to identify any question of law for the appeal.

The motion was dismissed, and no further extensions were granted, with the court emphasizing the significant delay and the appellant's non-compliance.

The respondents were awarded $1,500 in nominal costs for their time preparing for the various motions.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision that had terminated his tenancy and ordered him to pay for damages.

The LTB had previously found the applicant wilfully or negligently caused undue damage.

The applicant's notice of appeal was served within the 30-day period but was not filed in time due to a misunderstanding with the Divisional Court clerk, who incorrectly advised that a motion for leave to appeal was out of time.

Despite the dubious merits of the proposed appeal and the respondent's claims of prejudice from ongoing litigation, the court granted the extension of time to file the notice of appeal, finding no prejudice from the filing delay itself and emphasizing that a party should not be deprived of a right of appeal without real prejudice.

The City of Ottawa, acting as Service Manager under the Housing Services Act, 2011, sought an order to enforce its appointment of an interim board of directors for Coopérative d’habitation Voisins Inc. and to compel the former directors (Respondents) to surrender Co-op property and records.

The Co-op was in a state of governance paralysis with competing boards and a frozen bank account, leading to an inability to pay its debts.

The court found that the City's intervention was justified under the Act's provisions for immediate action when a housing provider is unable to meet its financial obligations, despite the Respondents' arguments regarding insufficient notice and alleged bias.

The court declared the City-appointed board legally constituted and issued a mandatory order for the Respondents to cooperate.

The landlords of a bankrupt individual sought a declaration that the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act did not apply to an eviction order obtained from the Landlord and Tenant Board, or, alternatively, an order to lift the stay.

The court found that the eviction order was not a 'debt or liability' and therefore not subject to the stay.

In the alternative, the court would have exercised its discretion to lift the stay, finding it just and equitable given the material prejudice to the landlords.

The bankrupt's request for a sealing order was denied, and costs were awarded to the landlords.

The applicant sought to enforce an option to purchase agreement for a property or, alternatively, the return of a $25,000 down payment.

The respondent argued the option expired and the payment was forfeited.

The court found the option agreement had expired and was not renewed, and the respondent's failure to provide compliant rent receipts was not causally linked to the applicant's inability to secure financing.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture for the $12,000 in monthly credits, finding it unconscionable for the respondent to retain this amount given it exceeded the contract's cap, but allowed the respondent to retain the initial $13,000 option fee.

The applicant sought to enforce an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board against the respondent, despite a general suspension of residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Chief Justice.

The Board had previously found urgent health and safety concerns due to the tenant's repeated marijuana smoking in a house with oxygen tanks, the landlord's compromised immune system, and threats made by the tenant.

The court, balancing the public health risk of eviction against the immediate health and safety risks posed by the tenant, granted leave to enforce the eviction order, effective June 17, 2020, with a provision for the tenant to make further submissions regarding notice.

A landlord sought leave to bring an urgent motion for directions to enforce an eviction order against tenants, despite a province-wide moratorium on evictions due to a public health emergency.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously ordered eviction based on a finding that a tenant committed a serious illegal act within the residential complex.

The court, acting as delegate of the Regional Senior Justice, found the matter urgent and granted leave for the landlord to bring the motion for directions, emphasizing the time-sensitive nature and potential interests of vulnerable third parties.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought urgent relief from lease forfeiture by the respondent landlord.

This endorsement scheduled an urgent application hearing and provided comprehensive procedural directions for electronic filing, email service, and remote hearing arrangements, designating a specific justice to preside over the matter.

Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) sought certiorari to quash a Youth Court decision that denied TCHC access to a young person's (R.V.) criminal justice records.

TCHC intended to use these records to commence eviction proceedings against R.V. and his family at the Landlord and Tenant Board on grounds of "illegality" and "community safety." The Youth Court had denied access, prioritizing R.V.'s privacy, rehabilitation, and reintegration under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

By the time the certiorari application reached the Superior Court, R.V. had withdrawn from the proceedings, and TCHC had decided not to pursue eviction, rendering the matter moot.

The Superior Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no persisting adversarial context, no significant public interest that would justify hearing a hypothetical case, and that the issue of "desirable in the interest of the proper administration of justice" under s.119 of the YCJA was fact-driven and best left to the Youth Court's expertise.

The applicants sought an order for vacant possession of a property from the respondents.

The property was originally owned by the respondent Mario Lograsso and his then-spouse (applicants' daughter), but was sold to the applicant Maria Azevedo in 2005 to avoid foreclosure.

The applicants allowed the respondents to live there rent-free.

After Mario and Nancy separated, the applicants sought to regain possession.

The respondents argued the property was a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act (FLA) and that they were tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).

The court found that neither Mario nor Nancy had a proprietary interest in the property since 2005, thus precluding a matrimonial home claim against the applicants.

Furthermore, the RTA did not apply due to the shared facilities exemption (s. 5(i)), as the respondents initially shared facilities with the owners' daughter.

The court granted the application for vacant possession and awarded costs to the applicants.

The plaintiff landlord sought double damages under sections 48 and 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act against the tenant corporation and its principals for allegedly fraudulently or clandestinely removing goods to prevent distress for rent arrears.

The court found that the bulk of the goods were removed before rent arrears accrued and that the removal was not clandestine or fraudulent.

The claims against the individual defendants and the claim for double damages against the corporate tenant were dismissed.

The corporate tenant was found liable for damages for breach of lease due to unpaid rent.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for lack of jurisdiction.

The appeal, concerning rent arrears and eviction, raised only factual matters, not questions of law as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found the appeal devoid of merit, frivolous, vexatious, and an an abuse of process, granting the motion, dismissing the appeal, and lifting the automatic stay of the eviction order.

The applicant mortgagee sought an order to set aside a tenancy agreement entered into by the mortgagor after defaulting on a mortgage.

The mortgagee argued the agreement was made to discourage possession or adversely affect property value.

The respondent tenants contended that the mortgagee, by accepting a rent payment, became a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act, thus precluding the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The court found that the mortgagee's actions were insufficient to establish "mortgagee in possession" status and that it retained jurisdiction under the Mortgages Act to set aside the tenancy agreement.

A writ of possession was issued, and the tenants were ordered to vacate, with the mortgagor responsible for reimbursement.