Spencer F. Toole

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy in supportive housing and subsequent orders dismissing her requests for review.

The tenant argued the LTB erred by not considering her inability to attend the hearings due to incarceration and health issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB's determinations regarding the tenant's ability to participate were findings of fact, not errors of law, and therefore outside the court's jurisdiction under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of defence in an estate action.

The motion judge struck the pleading after finding the appellants deliberately breached a court order requiring them to produce passwords for business email accounts and prohibiting the deletion of emails.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the Falcon Lumber test and concluding that striking the defence was an appropriate sanction for the appellants' repeated and continuous failure to provide transparent disclosure of estate business documents.

The tenant brought a motion for a stay of a Divisional Court case management judge's order pending a panel motion to review that order under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The tenant had not paid rent in a long time and admitted under oath to being unable to pay rent as it falls due or make payments toward substantial arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay and ordered the statutory stay of the Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order to be lifted immediately, noting that tenants are not entitled to rent-free living at the landlord's expense through the expedient of an appeal.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the landlord.

The moving party, a tenant, brought a motion to stay an eviction and a costs award pending his motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The tenant had previously consented to an order terminating the tenancy and requiring him to move out.

The Divisional Court had denied leave to appeal the Landlord and Tenant Board's decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that the tenant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the Divisional Court mistakenly declined jurisdiction, and that the balance of convenience favoured the landlords given the significant rent arrears and the tenant's prior agreement to vacate.

The appellant was partially successful on appeal, having a set-off amount of $325,824.41 quashed, though failing to overturn the dismissal of their claim.

The parties could not agree on costs following the appeal's mixed outcome.

The court found that while success was divided, the appellant's success on the set-off ground was of greater monetary value, justifying a costs award.

The court awarded the appellant $6,000 all-inclusive, noting the amount sought was disproportionate to the final outcome.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her after a cooking fire caused extensive damage to the residential complex.

The tenant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by refusing to hear evidence that the landlord illegally locked her out of the unit after repairs were completed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to permit evidence of the alleged lockout prevented it from considering all circumstances as required by section 83(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The eviction order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Board.

The appellant factoring company appealed a trial decision that dismissed its construction lien claim and found it jointly liable for damages caused by the contractor who abandoned the project.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings regarding the lack of authority to approve invoices.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in using equitable and statutory set-off as a sword to award damages against the assignee factoring company that exceeded the value of its lien.

The damages award against the appellant was quashed.

The moving party sought to review a decision dismissing his motion to extend the time to review a prior order, which had denied an extension of time to seek judicial review of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction decision.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the review motion, finding that the delay was excessive and prejudicial, and that the underlying proposed proceedings lacked merit because the LTB has no jurisdiction over rent-geared-to-income subsidy decisions.

The court noted that the moving party's recourse regarding his subsidy arrears lies with the municipality's administrative processes, not the LTB.

The court addresses a motion by the estate trustees of Carmen Debono to hold certain siblings in contempt or, alternatively, to strike their pleadings for failure to comply with a court order requiring disclosure of business email credentials and documents.

The court finds repeated, deliberate non-compliance and strikes the pleadings of David Debono and Elizabeth Muscat, stays the wrongful dismissal action until pleadings are amended, and awards significant costs.

The court declines to proceed with contempt, emphasizing that such proceedings are a last resort in civil matters.

The appellant landlord appealed from review decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that set aside previous eviction orders and directed fresh hearings de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the review decisions were interlocutory orders.

The court reaffirmed that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory decisions of the LTB, and explicitly noted that a prior decision suggesting otherwise was decided per incuriam.

The 90-year-old appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his 18-year tenancy for the landlords' own use.

The landlords sought possession so one of them could move in to care for his 94-year-old father.

The tenant argued the eviction was a reprisal for a bed bug complaint and raised issues regarding the notice of termination, relief from eviction, and procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the notice issue was a question of mixed fact and law outside its jurisdiction, the LTB member properly exercised discretion under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act to delay eviction, and there was no evidence of procedural unfairness.

The moving party sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering eviction and payment of rent arrears.

The moving party required an extension of time to file the notice of appeal but failed to file the required motion materials by the court-ordered deadline.

As a result, the motion could not proceed, no appeal was pending, and the automatic stay of eviction was lifted.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and ordering her eviction.

She argued the termination agreement was signed under coercion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it raised only questions of fact or mixed fact and law, over which the court has no jurisdiction under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

However, the court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to briefly postpone the eviction date.

This decision concerns two related lawsuits between siblings over the estate of their late mother, Carmen Debono.

The first action is for wrongful dismissal and oppression by David Debono and Elizabeth Muscat against the estate, its trustees, and two corporations.

The second is a claim by the estate, through its trustees, against David Debono, Elizabeth Muscat, and Jennifer Nesci for recovery of debts and alleged misappropriation of funds.

The court addresses interim motions for distributions and legal fees, as well as document production and the effect of an in terrorem clause in the will.

Both motions are dismissed, with the court emphasizing the need for transparency and full disclosure, and declining to enforce the in terrorem clause or grant interim relief at this stage.

The appellant, a former tenant in rent-geared-to-income housing, brought a motion for an extension of time to seek a panel review of a single judge's order.

The single judge had previously denied the appellant an extension of time to seek judicial review of 2022 Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to form an intention to review the decision within the four-day appeal period, provided no compelling explanation for the lengthy delay, and that the underlying application lacked merit as the Board has no jurisdiction to review rent-geared-to-income calculations.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing she was denied procedural fairness.

The appellant had retained a paralegal the day before the hearing, who sent an agent to request an adjournment.

Due to a misunderstanding, the agent left before the adjournment was formally considered.

The hearing proceeded with the unrepresented appellant, who was temporarily disconnected and missed the landlord's evidence on the adjournment.

The Divisional Court found the Board's handling of the adjournment, the appellant's disconnection, and the failure to explain the process to the self-represented appellant amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a different Board member.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the landlords' application to terminate the tenancy for demolition.

The tenant argued the planned work was a renovation, which would afford a right of first refusal to re-occupy the unit, rather than a demolition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LTB applied the correct legal test for demolition and that the tenant's arguments amounted to an impermissible attempt to reargue findings of fact.

The eviction was delayed due to the tenant's personal circumstances.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for failing to meet payment terms in a prior consent order.

The tenant argued the LTB breached procedural fairness by proceeding without notice and that she had since paid her arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 78(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act expressly permits hearings without notice in these circumstances.

The court also held that an appeal is not a de novo hearing and subsequent payments do not cure defaults that existed at the time of the LTB hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and two subsequent orders denying extensions of time to review the eviction.

The tenant failed to attend the initial hearing and provided no reasons for his unavailability other than needing time to prepare.

The Board proceeded in his absence and ordered eviction for rent arrears.

The tenant later sought extensions of time to review the order, which were denied for lack of reasonable explanation for the delay.

On appeal, the tenant introduced new evidence that he was incarcerated during the initial hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or breach of procedural fairness by the Board based on the information before it at the time, and noting the tenant was released from incarceration well before the deadline to seek a review.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting her for failing to maintain the cleanliness of her rental unit.

The tenant argued the Board erred by failing to consider the landlord's failure to repair her refrigerator, which she claimed forced her to store food in her bathtub.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant did not exercise diligence in pursuing the appeal and failed to raise a genuine question of law under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, as her proposed appeal merely challenged the Board's factual findings and weighing of evidence.