Spencer F. Toole

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.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The appellant landlords re-entered the leased premises after the respondent tenants defaulted on rent.

The application judge found the re-entry wrongful due to a defective notice and premature action.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, finding that the landlords were entitled to re-enter based on a prior, continuing breach of the lease, specifically the failure to pay accelerated rent as per a non-waiver clause.

The Court emphasized that the landlords had not waived the breach by accepting partial payments.

The trial judge's order was set aside, and the original application dismissed.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing he did not know disconnecting his fire alarm was illegal and that he missed the initial hearing because his agent cancelled.

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

The court noted the tenant failed to raise the knowledge issue before the Board and had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the initial hearing.

The tenant appealed a procedural order of the Landlord and Tenant Board directing that the matter proceed in writing.

The tenant, who had requested accommodation for serious disabilities, objected to the tight timeline for submitting materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to proceed in writing was reasonable and procedurally fair.

However, the court issued directions establishing a new, extended schedule for the exchange of evidence and written arguments.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the condominium corporation an order to enter and inspect a unit following a complaint about noise emanating from the staircase.

The appellants denied entry and issued a trespass notice.

The appellants raised seven grounds of appeal in their factum but narrowed their argument at hearing to a single contention that there was no evidentiary basis for the condominium board to carry out an inspection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the condominium corporation had a right and duty under the Condominium Act to ensure compliance with legislation and to inspect the unit to gather information about the nature and extent of the suspected problem.

The tenant brought an application against the landlord for a declaration that a notice of termination was void, an accounting of distrained assets, and the release of seized property.

The landlord had re-entered the commercial premises after issuing a notice of default for rent arrears, but did so before the notice period stipulated in the lease had expired.

The court found the re-entry and termination unlawful, as the parties had contracted out of the statutory 15-day default period in favour of a specific notice period.

The court ordered the landlord to release the tenant's property and directed a trial of an issue to determine the tenant's damages.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board and brought a motion to be restored to possession of the rental unit after the landlord had already taken possession.

The court treated the motion as a request for an interlocutory injunction.

The court found the tenant could not establish a 'serious issue to be tried' because he had abandoned both the original hearing and the review hearing.

Furthermore, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to restore possession in the face of a lawful eviction order enforced before the appeal and stay order were issued.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1328, sought full indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an order permitting entry into a condominium unit owned by 2145401 Ontario Inc. and occupied by Paul Starkman.

The respondents opposed, arguing for partial indemnity costs based on usual civil procedure principles.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $10,000 in fees and $827.06 in disbursements, inclusive of HST, finding that while the applicant was wholly successful, neither party was blameless in the underlying dispute, and the condominium's indemnity provisions did not mandate full indemnity for legal costs.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing their request to review an eviction order.

Following the eviction order for the landlord's own use, the parties signed an agreement extending the move-out date.

The tenants argued this agreement, which allegedly included a $10,000 payment, created a new tenancy.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the agreement was a forbearance agreement under section 45(b)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act and did not create a new tenancy.

The appeal was dismissed.