Seema Kawar

The landlord appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding she unlawfully charged the tenants a commission contrary to s. 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The landlord argued the LTB erred by preferring the tenant's live evidence over an unsworn written statement, providing inadequate reasons, and finding the real estate agent acted on her behalf.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LTB's weighing of evidence and factual findings raised no questions of law, and its reasons were adequate.

The moving party, a vulnerable tenant in subsidized housing, was evicted for a minor breach of a mediated settlement agreement.

The landlord and sheriff executed the eviction before the tenant could file an appeal.

The tenant brought an urgent motion to reinstate his tenancy pending the appeal.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction under section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to reinstate the tenancy despite the execution of the eviction order.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the Board's failure to consider all circumstances, and that the tenant would suffer irreparable harm due to homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion was granted and the tenancy reinstated.

The appellant tenant brought an urgent motion to be restored to the premises during the COVID-19 suspension of normal court activities.

The landlord undertook not to re-lease or give possession of the unit pending the final determination of the motion.

The court adjourned the motion to a teleconference hearing and provided procedural directions for the filing of affidavit evidence.