3 total
The court quashed a tenant's eviction appeal as manifestly devoid of merit.
The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the tenant's eviction due to fire and egress hazards caused by hoarding.
The tenant sought multiple reviews, which were dismissed.
The tenant appealed to the Divisional Court.
The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal and lift the stay of eviction, arguing no question of law was raised and the appeal lacked merit.
The court found no error of law in the Board's decision that the tenant had notice and was able to participate in the hearing, nor in its consideration of the tenant's circumstances or the landlord's accommodation efforts.
The motion to quash the appeal was granted, and the stay of eviction was lifted.
Tenant's appeal of eviction order quashed as manifestly devoid of merit raising no question of law.
The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to review an eviction order based on severe hoarding and fire hazards.
The tenant had failed to attend the original hearing, claiming she did not receive notice.
The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.
The Divisional Court found that the Board's factual determinations regarding notice and the tenant's ability to participate did not raise any questions of law.
The court held the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit, quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded costs to the landlord.
The court declined to rescind child support arrears, finding no deliberate denial of access.
The respondent, Bissonnette, brought a motion to change a final order to rescind child support arrears.
The court conducted a trial of the issue, considering whether denial of access, delay in enforcement, misrepresentation of arrears, or the child no longer being dependent should preclude enforcement.
The court found no deliberate denial of access by the applicant, no acquiescence in non-payment, and that Bissonnette's delay in seeking relief was unreasonable.
The court declined to preclude enforcement of arrears, deferring the issue of the child's lack of need and hardship to the paying party for a future trial or settlement.
