Spencer F. Toole

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for rental arrears.

The tenant argued the Board erred by denying an adjournment to challenge his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) calculations, failing to find illegal rent increases, and proceeding despite an incomplete audio recording.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the incomplete recording did not prevent meaningful review, the Board correctly held it lacked jurisdiction over RGI calculations, and the tenant failed to act with reasonable diligence to challenge the calculations elsewhere.

The changes in rent payable were lawful RGI recalculations, and the arrears calculation was an unappealable finding of fact.

The self-represented tenants brought a motion to extend the time for serving and filing a motion to vary a previous order that lifted a stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting the tenants missed the deadline by almost a month without a reasonable explanation.

Furthermore, the court held that the tenants could not seek relief while remaining in breach of ongoing court orders to pay rent and outstanding arrears.

The self-represented appellant sought to appeal an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant was evicted for violating an agreement to maintain the cleanliness of her unit and filed her appeal months late.

The Divisional Court provided procedural directions, explaining that the court can only hear appeals on questions of law and setting a timetable for the appellant to bring a motion for an extension of time to appeal.

The applicant sought a beneficial interest in a residential property owned by his parents (the respondents) based on the equitable doctrines of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment.

The applicant claimed an oral agreement from 2005 to transfer title if he made mortgage payments and repaid the $100,000 downpayment.

The respondents admitted an oral agreement but asserted it expired in 2007 due to the applicant's failure to repay the downpayment by a May 2007 deadline, treating him as a long-term tenant.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove proprietary estoppel or unjust enrichment.

The judge preferred the respondents' evidence, concluding the oral agreement was time-limited and had elapsed, and that the applicant was merely a tenant who received the benefit of living in the home for a reasonable rent.

The Certificate of Pending Litigation on the property was lifted.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board and were previously directed to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent to maintain a stay of eviction.

The tenants failed to pay, arguing they were entitled to see the original lease and a forensic accounting, and raised various constitutional arguments.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the stay, while the tenants moved for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The court lifted the stay due to the tenants' refusal to pay lawful rent, but granted the tenants an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The appellant, Grandfield Homes (Kenton) Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that denied its request for a trial on damages beyond forfeited deposits in a failed residential real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the claim for additional damages was not sufficiently pleaded in the notice of application or supporting evidence.

The court emphasized that relief sought must be precisely stated in pleadings and that counsel's confirmation during cross-examination that additional damages were not sought in the application was binding.

The court also agreed that ordering a separate trial on damages would result in an unnecessary bifurcation and multiplicity of proceedings, causing potential prejudice to the respondent.

The plaintiffs (landlords) were entirely successful in a landlord and tenant dispute against the defendants, who had failed to pay rent for three years and gamed the system by fabricating a tenancy for an unidentified spouse.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs of $45,842.95 on a substantial indemnity basis.

Furthermore, the court found that the defendants' lawyer had allowed his client to abuse the administration of justice and ordered the lawyer to personally pay the costs if the defendants failed to do so within thirty days.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for delay.

The tenant had failed to perfect the appeal by the agreed-upon deadline and did not respond to the motion or provide any explanation for the delay.

Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure by analogy, the Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal for delay.

The plaintiff landlords brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant tenant corporation and its principal for over $300,000 in rent arrears and possession of the residential premises.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to set aside their noting in default.

The court found the defendants had engaged in a bad faith campaign to game the system, occupying the premises rent-free for three years while illegally using it for business purposes.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default, pierced the corporate veil to hold the principal jointly and severally liable, granted default judgment for the rent arrears, awarded $100,000 in punitive damages, and ordered immediate eviction.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment in a landlord and tenant dispute involving approximately $300,000 in rent arrears.

The defendants resisted and moved to set aside the noting of default.

On the day of the hearing, the parties presented a proposed consent order to terminate the tenancy and grant a writ of possession.

The court declined to issue the order because it mistakenly stated that one of the defendants had been noted in default, failed to properly identify that defendant, and did not address an outstanding counterclaim.

The motion was adjourned to allow the parties to either argue the motion on its merits or resolve the issues.

The moving party tenant sought an extension of time to appeal and apply for judicial review of three Landlord and Tenant Board orders, including a 2023 eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant's challenges were brought after the statutory deadlines had passed.

The Divisional Court denied the extension for the 2022 orders and the judicial review application due to lengthy delay and lack of merit.

However, the court granted a short extension of time to appeal the 2023 eviction order, imposing strict conditions including the payment of ongoing rent.

The landlords obtained an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board for personal use of the rental unit.

The tenants appealed the decision to the Divisional Court, alleging procedural unfairness and raising various irrelevant issues.

The landlords moved to quash the appeal.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Board's decision was based on straightforward factual findings that were not subject to appeal, and that the tenants' procedural fairness claims were without foundation.

The appeal was quashed and the stay of eviction was lifted.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy and evicting them for smoking marijuana in their unit, which caused health issues for the landlords' children.

The tenants argued the notice of termination was invalid because it failed to specify the exact times they smoked, and that they were denied procedural fairness during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act requires grounds, not specific times, and that the notice provided sufficient detail.

The court also found no procedural unfairness in the Board's conduct of the hearing.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy to allow the landlords to demolish and rebuild the house.

The tenant had failed to attend the eviction hearing and subsequently sought a review, which the Board dismissed after finding he had been properly served with notice and did not genuinely intend to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings of fact regarding service were supported by the record and that there was no error of law or breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought a declaration of entitlement to a deposit paid by the respondent under a contract to purchase a new build home, and a direction for a trial on further damages.

The respondent refused to close, alleging misrepresentations regarding square footage and finish quality.

The court found no valid misrepresentations, enforcing the entire agreement clause against the respondent despite claims of limited English and alleged verbal assurances.

The court declared the applicant entitled to retain the $502,500 deposit, finding a 15% deposit not unconscionable.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's request for a trial on further damages, noting it was not sought in the initial application and would lead to inefficient bifurcation of proceedings.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision terminating her tenancy for non-payment of rent, as well as the subsequent review decision upholding the eviction.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because she allegedly did not receive the notice of hearing, was told by the landlord's agent not to attend, and was denied access to duty counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The court noted the LTB's factual findings regarding service of the notice and the appellant's lack of diligence were not appealable, and an official transcript refuted her claim about being denied duty counsel.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, triggering an automatic stay.

The landlord sought an order requiring the tenant to pay outstanding rent arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of maintaining the stay pending the appeal.

The tenant argued that the landlord's claim to arrears exceeding the Board's monetary jurisdiction was extinguished under s. 207(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court ordered the tenant to pay the remaining $25,000 in arrears into trust and to continue paying regular monthly rent to maintain the stay, balancing the risks to both parties.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying a request to review a set aside order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the grounds raised were either not responsive to the record or challenged findings of fact and exercises of discretion, which are not permitted under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the tenant fully participated in the hearings and never requested an adjournment or accommodation.

The applicant condominium owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation for unreasonably restricting his ability to renovate his unit.

The corporation had imposed arbitrary timelines and limited service elevator access to two 20-minute windows, ignoring the applicant's explanations that more time was needed.

The court found the corporation's conduct unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests, ordered a reasonable construction schedule, and awarded special damages for the applicant's temporary accommodation and storage costs.

General damages were denied.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued she had an ownership interest in the property under an agreement of purchase and sale, and raised issues of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and holding that the Board was entitled to determine the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also upheld the Board's refusal to grant relief from eviction.