Landlord and Tenant - SCJ

The plaintiff lawyer brought an urgent motion for an interim order prohibiting his landlord from evicting him from his commercial office space at the end of his lease term.

Although the parties had exchanged emails agreeing to a one-year lease extension, the plaintiff declined to rely on that agreement, seeking instead to stay for only four months due to a breakdown in the relationship.

The court dismissed the request for interim relief, finding that without asserting the extended lease, the plaintiff had no legal basis to remain in the premises and therefore failed to establish a serious issue to be tried.

The applicant mortgagee sought possession of a residential property after the respondent mortgagor defaulted on his loans.

Unbeknownst to the mortgagee, the mortgagor had fraudulently leased the property to innocent tenants who paid $30,000 in advance rent.

The court balanced the equities between the innocent mortgagee and the innocent tenants under section 52 of the Mortgages Act.

Finding the tenants to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice, the court ordered that the tenants could remain in possession until the end of their lease, after which the mortgagee would obtain full possession.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Shortly before the hearing, the self-represented respondent advised the court that she wished to respond to the appeal in French and be addressed in French.

The panel adjourned the matter to be heard on the merits by a bilingual panel in the interests of justice.

The plaintiff landlord brought an interim motion for the payment of rent pending the hearing of its action to evict the defendant tenants and recover arrears.

The self-represented tenants requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing severe respiratory illness supported by doctors' notes.

Despite concerns about the tenants' history of delay tactics, the court reluctantly granted a brief, peremptory adjournment, ordering the tenants to pay $4,006.00 in partial rent prior to the return date.

The applicant apartment association applied to quash City of Toronto By-laws 1121-2019 and 1750-2019, which required apartment owners to provide emergency accommodations to displaced tenants and imposed a full cost recovery fee on landlords if the City provided those services.

The court held that the City lacked the legislative authority to require landlords to provide emergency social services regardless of the cause of the building becoming uninhabitable.

The court quashed the specific provisions imposing the fee and the requirement to provide emergency social services, while upholding the remainder of the by-laws.

Following a successful motion by the landlord to terminate a commercial lease and obtain immediate possession due to over $1 million in rent arrears, the court determined costs.

The landlord sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the lease terms and due to the tenant's unreasonable conduct, including advancing meritless arguments and refusing to approve the draft order.

The court awarded the landlord $45,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, payable forthwith.

The applicant subtenant brought an application seeking damages for an allegedly unlawful lockout by the respondent sublandlord.

The applicant claimed the parties had orally agreed to a 75% rent reduction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant failed to prove the existence of the oral agreement, noting the sublandlord had requested full payment and the applicant failed to provide documentation required for a Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Act (CECRA) application.

The court held the lockout was lawful and not precluded by pandemic-related amendments to the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The applicant landlord sought to terminate a commercial lease and obtain vacant possession due to the respondent tenant's non-payment of rent, failure to maintain insurance, and unauthorized residential use of the premises.

The tenant, who operated a martial arts studio, had been forced to close due to COVID-19 provincial orders and paid only 25% of the rent.

The court declined to grant the landlord's application, finding that the default was clearly related to the global pandemic and government-mandated shutdown.

The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to grant the tenant relief from forfeiture, conditional upon the tenant providing proof of insurance and ceasing residential use within ten days.

The plaintiffs and defendants swapped possession of their respective properties in 1991 without transferring title.

The plaintiffs obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board against the defendants for unpaid rent on one of the properties.

The defendants moved for an interlocutory injunction to stay the eviction order pending the resolution of the plaintiffs' action for title transfer and the defendants' counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet the test for an injunction, as the plaintiffs had a strong case, the defendants did not adequately demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The non-parties, who occupied the subject property, brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee against the defendant mortgagor.

The non-parties relied on Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the non-parties lacked standing to rely on Rule 21.01(3) as they were not defendants in the mortgage action.

The court also declined to set aside the order granting the Writ of Possession, noting the request was not properly before the court and constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The applicant landlord sought damages for unpaid rent and utilities from the respondent tenants who had vacated the property.

The respondents, who did not appear at the hearing, made a last-minute request for an adjournment, which the court denied due to their repeated failure to comply with court orders and retain counsel.

The court found that the lease had not been renewed and that the respondents were overholding tenants.

The court ordered the respondents to pay $122,500 in unpaid rent and $1,324.60 in unpaid utilities, plus prejudgment interest.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion seeking an interlocutory order vesting title of a disputed property in their names to allow them to refinance and avoid eviction, as well as a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an order setting aside the noting of default on the defendant's counterclaim.

The parties disputed the beneficial ownership of the property, which was registered in the defendant's name.

The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had previously found the plaintiffs to be tenants and ordered their eviction due to mortgage defaults.

The court set aside the noting of default due to the plaintiffs' former counsel's negligence.

However, the court dismissed the requests for a vesting order and a CPL, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them.

The court also found the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the LTB's eviction order.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that the lease agreement with the respondent tenant was a commercial lease subject to the Commercial Tenancies Act, despite being executed on a standard residential lease form.

The court applied the predominant purpose test, finding that the tenant used the property primarily for its telecommunications construction business, maintained heavy equipment on site, and used the house as a corporate office.

The court held that the lease was commercial in nature and granted the declaratory relief.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant for damages caused by flooding, relying on the lease's insurance and indemnity clauses.

The defendant requested a case conference to argue that summary judgment was inappropriate because a third-party action against its subtenant would continue, risking inconsistent findings.

The court allowed the summary judgment motion to proceed, finding it proportionate and unlikely to result in inconsistent findings, as the third party had not defended the main action and would be bound by its outcome.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the third party to retain counsel and the defendant to conduct cross-examinations.

At a case conference, the court established a new peremptory timetable for an application regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The respondent had failed to comply with the previous timetable and recently retained new counsel.

The court ordered the respondent to deliver its record, including proof of payment for additional rent claimed, and set dates for cross-examinations and factums.

The plaintiffs, owners of single-family homes, leased their properties to the defendant who fraudulently converted them into illegal rooming houses.

After the defendant failed to comply with a previous court order to restore the properties to single-family dwellings, the plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt and a writ of possession.

The court found the defendant in civil contempt, granted the plaintiffs exclusive possession under its inherent jurisdiction to enforce its orders, and ordered the defendant to pay $36,000 in restitution or face a 120-day jail sentence.

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) sought representation orders under Rule 10.01(1)(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to represent unknown tenants and landlords, respectively, in a motion to set aside an order suspending residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the requests, finding that the case did not fall within the enumerated types of proceedings for a Rule 10 order and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting one, as each tenant facing eviction has unique circumstances.

Furthermore, the court held that ACTO, as an advocacy group without a direct interest or shared cause of action, was not an appropriate representative.

The applicant son sought to set aside an arbitration award that ordered him to vacate his deceased mother's condominium, arguing he was a tenant of the estate and the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The respondent estate trustee brought a cross-application for vacant possession.

The court found that the applicant's prior arrangement with his mother was not governed by the Residential Tenancies Act because they shared a kitchen, and no new tenancy agreement was formed with the estate.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claim that he was treated unfairly during the arbitration, noting he made a strategic choice to proceed on a paper record.

The estate's application for vacant possession was granted.

The plaintiff corporation purchased equipment from a tenant operating a kitchen manufacturing business.

The landlord subsequently distrained the equipment for unpaid rent owed by a subsequent tenant and sold the goods through a bailiff.

The plaintiff sued the landlord and the bailiff for trespass to goods.

The court found that the plaintiff owned the goods at the time of sale and that the landlord's distress was unlawful.

The court awarded damages of $9,000, representing the liquidation value of the goods, holding the landlord and bailiff jointly liable, but ordered the landlord to fully indemnify the bailiff.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff landlord for unpaid commercial rent.

The court applied the test for setting aside default judgment and found that the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their default, failed to explain the five-and-a-half-year delay in bringing the motion, and lacked a meritorious defence.

The motion was dismissed.