Spencer F. Toole

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 landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenants' appeal for delay and to lift the automatic stay of eviction.

The tenants had failed to perfect their appeal within the prescribed time, failed to comply with court-ordered payment directions, and did not respond to the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for delay by analogy to Rule 61.13(3.1) and ordered the tenants to pay costs.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a corporate entity that had ceased operations and had no assets.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing impecuniosity and that its claim for breach of contract had a high probability of success.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to prove impecuniosity, as it did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the financial ability of its shareholders to fund the litigation.

The court also found the merits of the claim to be a neutral factor.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $85,000 in security for costs, payable in four installments.

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.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay, arguing the appeal was devoid of merit and an abuse of process due to unpaid rent.

The court found the appeal raised a procedural fairness issue, which constitutes a question of law, and was not manifestly devoid of merit.

Noting the tenant's partial payments and completion of appeal materials, the court declined to quash the appeal or lift the stay, but imposed strict terms requiring the tenant to pay ongoing rent plus $700 monthly towards arrears.

The appellants, two tenants in a residential property, appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancies for the landlord's own use.

The Divisional Court found that the Board member breached the duty of procedural fairness by excluding each tenant from portions of the virtual hearing where relevant evidence was given, and then relying on that evidence in the decisions.

The appeals were allowed and the matters remitted to the Board for new hearings before a different member.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 did not apply to his tenancy under the s. 5(j) business exemption.

The Board found the predominant purpose of the tenancy was to operate an Airbnb short-term rental business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applied the correct legal test and the tenant's challenge raised issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not an extricable question of law.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for an incapable person, brought a summary judgment motion against the incapable person's former attorney for property.

The attorney had transferred the incapable person's unencumbered residential property to himself in trust for his daughter for no consideration, subsequently sold it, and misappropriated funds from her bank accounts.

The court found the attorney breached his fiduciary duties and ordered him to pay damages of $2,550,000 for the property sale and $150,015 for the misappropriated funds, plus full indemnity costs.

The tenant appellants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and a subsequent consent order denying their motion to set aside the termination.

The tenants argued the consent order was induced by the landlords' misrepresentation regarding the purchase of the property and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appeal raised a question of mixed fact and law, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim, arguing it duplicated an existing application the defendants had filed at the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding an alleged bad faith eviction.

The court found that the counterclaim was an abuse of process as it arose from the same factual matrix and sought the same relief as the tribunal application.

The counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down or restrict a competing deli opened by two former long-term employees.

The plaintiff argued the employees were fiduciaries.

The court found the employees were managers but not fiduciaries, as they lacked strategic authority and the employer was not peculiarly vulnerable to their departure.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The defendants, Darren Hendren and Delaxan Ithayaneesan, brought a motion to vary a Mareva injunction to access frozen proprietary assets for living expenses and legal fees, citing reduced income due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide frank disclosure of their assets, income, and expenses, and did not demonstrate that they had no other available assets.

The court also found that a balancing of interests favored the plaintiff, given the strong prima facie case of wrongdoing and the risk of asset dissipation.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had not paid rent since August 2019 and failed to attend the Board hearing or the motion to quash.

The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The court quashed the appeal as an abuse of process designed solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlords.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal due to substantial rent arrears.

Prior to the hearing, the tenant withdrew his appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, lifted the stay of the eviction order, and fixed outstanding rent at $10,710.17.

The court also added the new purchaser of the property as a respondent landlord to ensure vacant possession could be enforced.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent.

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.