Sumita Pillay-Dason

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.

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.