Sweeny

The appellant, a former tenant, appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her application to reopen a mediated settlement with her former landlord.

She argued the Board Member was biased, denied her an adjournment, and improperly excluded evidence of coercion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no procedural unfairness in denying the adjournment, and that the Board reasonably excluded evidence of coercion that did not relate to the mediation itself.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy based on an N11 agreement.

The tenants argued the written agreement was subject to an oral side agreement allowing them to stay until the house was sold.

The Board upheld the eviction without making factual findings about the side agreement or explaining its legal consequences.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's failure to provide reasons or consider the real substance of the transaction under section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act rendered the decision unreasonable and incapable of meaningful review.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member.

Following a 30-year relationship, the applicant sought spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the valuation date and calculated the equalization payment owed by the respondent.

The court imputed income to both parties, as neither was working at the time of trial, and ordered the respondent to pay spousal support of $500 per month for an indefinite period.

The proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home were distributed to account for equalization, costs, and overpayment of interim spousal support.

The minor plaintiff was injured when struck by a tow truck near the proposed defendants' home.

The minor's father was appointed litigation guardian and sued the tow truck owner and driver, who counterclaimed for negligent supervision and third-partied the homeowners.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs moved to add the homeowners as defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father knew the material facts on the day of the accident, and held that a litigation guardian's potential conflict of interest does not suspend the running of the limitation period.