Timothy M. Duggan

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision refusing to terminate a tenancy.

The landlord argued the building was originally a 'life lease' building exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act, and therefore section 51(1), which protects tenants during condominium conversions, did not apply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination that the Act applied was a question of mixed fact and law based on incomplete evidence regarding the prior life lease, and thus outside the court's appellate jurisdiction.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion in the Superior Court of Justice seeking to appeal a case conference endorsement issued by a judge of the Divisional Court.

The appellant also requested an adjournment to submit new evidence of alleged fraud by the Landlord and Tenant Board, and argued he was not properly served with the respondents' motion materials because the email did not address him correctly.

The court denied the adjournment and found service was valid.

The motion was dismissed on the basis that a judge of the Superior Court has no jurisdiction under section 21 of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a case conference endorsement made by a judge of the Divisional Court.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order finding it had given a bad faith notice of termination and imposing a $10,000 administrative fine.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the landlord and tenants settled their dispute and agreed to set aside the Board's order.

The Board sought standing to participate in the appeal to defend the administrative fine.

The Divisional Court held that the Board could make submissions regarding the nature and purpose of administrative fines, balancing the need for fully-informed adjudication against maintaining tribunal impartiality.

On the merits, the court upheld the $10,000 fine, finding it served a public protection purpose to deter future violations and was not based on an error of law.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal by Peter Tak Ming Lee and Mun Chung Leung from a judgment granting York Region Standard Condominium Corporation No. 972 possession of their unit and leave to issue a writ of possession, unless the appellants discharged a lien.

The appeal raised issues of trial judge bias, disregard of evidence, and the validity and calculation of the lien.

The court rejected the bias and evidentiary grounds, but found a calculation error in the lien amount, requiring a reduction.

The appeal was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the tenant a 30% rent abatement after the landlord removed a roof deck and offered a portion of a shared courtyard in exchange.

The landlord argued the LTB erred in law by finding this was a discontinuance of a facility rather than a mere change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB properly applied the relevant legal principles to assess the adequacy of the exchanged facility and made no error of law in concluding the roof deck's removal was an unreasonable discontinuance.

The appellant brought a motion asking the Divisional Court to reconsider its previous judgment dismissing his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondent requested the motion be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court noted that the Court of Appeal had recently dismissed the appellant's motion for leave to appeal the very decision he sought to have reconsidered.

Consequently, the Divisional Court found it was functus officio and dismissed the motion for reconsideration as fundamentally flawed and an abuse of process.

The landlord brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which had proceeded in the landlord's absence.

The landlord argued the Board erred in finding it had been properly served with notice of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the validity of notice and due diligence are questions of fact, not law, and therefore cannot be appealed under s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court awarded costs of $3,500 to the tenant.

Following a fire in a residential complex, the landlords refused to allow tenants to return to their units despite the City of Sarnia clearing the units for occupancy.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the landlords had illegally locked out the tenants, substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment, and engaged in harassment.

The Board awarded damages and imposed administrative fines totalling $525,000.

The landlords appealed and sought judicial review on several grounds, including procedural fairness, damages awards, and the quantum of the fines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and applications for judicial review, except for the issue of naming the principal of the corporate landlord as a 'landlord' personally, which was remitted to the Board due to a lack of procedural fairness.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy and ordering eviction for rent arrears exceeding $67,000.

The court previously ordered the tenant to pay ongoing rent and make partial payments towards the arrears as a condition of maintaining the statutory stay of eviction pending appeal.

The tenant failed to make any payments and failed to perfect his appeal.

The court lifted the stay of eviction, finding the balance of convenience heavily favoured the landlord, and dismissed the appeal.

The moving party, a non-tenant occupant of a residential unit, brought a motion asking the Divisional Court to reconsider its decision dismissing the tenant's appeal of Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders, and to add her as a party.

The moving party had not participated in the initial Board hearing or the appeal before it was heard.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not in the interests of justice to reopen the appeal, as the moving party should have raised her issues before the Board and appealed in a timely manner.

Following an appeal regarding lawful rent and temporary rent accommodations during the pandemic, the respondent tenant sought costs based on an offer to settle.

The court noted that the tenant succeeded on one issue but conceded the second issue late in the proceedings.

Finding that success on the appeal was divided, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that a 17-month pandemic rent reduction became the lawful rent under s. 111 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The landlord argued the arrangement was a rent deferral, not a discount, and sought $15,000 in arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed this ground of appeal, holding that the Board's conclusion was a factual finding unreviewable on appeal and that the landlord failed to document a deferral agreement.

However, the court quashed a portion of the Board's decision that improperly ruled on the current rent, as the tenant had been paying the original rent plus increases for over a year, triggering the limitation periods in ss. 135.1 and 136.

The moving party, a self-represented tenant, sought an urgent stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order pending a review of a single judge's order that had dismissed his appeal for delay and lifted the stay.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found no serious issue to be tried regarding the dismissal for delay, as the tenant had breached a court-ordered schedule without a plausible explanation.

The balance of convenience also favoured the landlord due to the tenant's history of non-payment of rent and delay tactics.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

However, because court staff had misdirected the tenant regarding the proper appellate route, the court granted an extension of time to bring the review motion.

The Atkinson Housing Co-operative Inc. applied for a declaration that no member occupied a specific three-bedroom townhouse and for a writ of possession.

The respondent, Hector F. Osorio, claimed to be a member entitled to occupy the unit.

The court found no merit in Osorio's claim, determining he had not been a member since 2011 and had formally resigned in 2018.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had previously found Osorio was not a member and ordered his eviction, but that decision was overturned on appeal due to the Board's lack of jurisdiction to evict non-members.

The Superior Court, exercising its jurisdiction under the Co-operative Corporations Act, confirmed Osorio's non-member status and granted the co-op's application for a declaration and writ of possession, finding no exceptional circumstances to deny the writ.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply to his occupation of an Airbnb unit.

The appellant had booked the unit for several months and alleged he was illegally locked out when the respondent refused a further extension.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the unit fell within the section 5(a) exemption for temporary living accommodations, noting the unit was fully furnished and akin to a motel.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's decision to hear the jurisdiction and lockout applications together.

The appeal was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review decision that upheld the dismissal of his application for failing to attend the hearing.

The tenant had requested an adjournment due to a scheduled rotator cuff surgery and provided medical letters, including one from his treating psychiatrist stating he would be unable to participate in the hearing process.

The LTB denied the adjournment, finding the medical opinion speculative, and proceeded in the tenant's absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LTB superficially rejected the medical evidence and denied the tenant procedural fairness by depriving him of an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The matter was remitted to the LTB for a new hearing.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order due to delay.

The tenant had previously appealed an eviction order, which was dismissed, and subsequently brought a motion to void the eviction order, which was also dismissed.

The tenant appealed the dismissal of the voiding order but failed to perfect the appeal by the court-ordered deadline.

Finding that the tenant's actions were a further attempt to delay the eviction, the court dismissed the appeal.

No costs were awarded as the landlord failed to file a bill of costs.

The tenant appealed orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, resulting in an automatic stay of eviction.

The court directed the tenant to pay ongoing rent and a portion of arrears as a condition of continuing the appeal.

The tenant failed to make any payments and failed to perfect the appeal.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The court found the tenant's failure to pay rent or move forward with the appeal constituted an abuse of process, quashed the appeal, and lifted the stay.

The tenant appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction orders resulting from hearings he did not attend.

In 2019, the tenant missed the hearing due to a flat tire.

In 2022, the tenant, who suffers from depression, was unaware of the video hearing.

The LTB denied his requests for review in both instances.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding that the tenant was not reasonably able to participate in either proceeding.

Applying a broad interpretation of natural justice, the Court set aside the review orders and remitted the matters back to the LTB for new hearings.

The appellant appealed Landlord and Tenant Board orders finding he was not a member of the respondent housing co-operative and ordering his eviction.

The appellant had previously resigned his membership and his ex-spouse, the remaining member, had abandoned the unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal solely on the basis that the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict an unauthorized occupant (non-member) from a co-op, a point conceded by the respondent.

The appellant's other grounds of appeal, including claims regarding notice, membership status, and standing to challenge his ex-spouse's eviction, were dismissed.