Timothy M. Duggan

The landlord brought a motion in writing to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board, citing the tenant's delay in pursuing his appeal.

Although the tenant had complied with a previous case management order to pay rent and arrears, he failed to perfect his appeal by the deadline or provide evidence of ordering transcripts.

The court granted the motion and lifted the stay of eviction due to the tenant's delay and failure to respond to the motion.

This case concerns an action for wrongful dismissal, breaches of human rights legislation, and claims for moral and punitive damages.

The plaintiff, a former superintendent, alleged harassment and assault by tenants, leading to mental health issues and subsequent termination.

The court found the employer wrongfully dismissed the plaintiff, that the termination clause was unenforceable, and that the employer's defense of frustration of contract failed.

The employer was found to have breached its statutory obligations by failing to protect the employee from third-party harassment.

Damages were awarded for wrongful dismissal, human rights violations, and moral damages for the bad faith manner of termination.

Claims for intentional infliction of mental suffering and punitive damages were dismissed.

The appellant, who acted as an agent and landlord but was not the property owner, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding him jointly liable for a bad faith eviction under s. 57 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued the LTB erred in law by failing to apportion liability between the multiple landlords based on their respective roles, as he lacked the legal authority to sell the property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the RTA is consumer protection legislation designed to balance rights between landlords and tenants, and does not require the LTB to adjudicate or apportion liability between multiple landlords.

The appellant tenant appealed three eviction orders and a review order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent and committing illegal acts.

The tenant argued the Board erred in finding he committed illegal acts because he was acquitted of the related criminal charges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board applies a different standard of proof and is permitted under the Residential Tenancies Act to evict for illegal acts without a criminal conviction.

The court found no errors of law in the Board's assessment of the evidence, its refusal to grant relief from eviction, or its procedural fairness.

The tenant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy on the basis of the landlord's good faith requirement for his son.

The notice of appeal was approximately three weeks late.

The court applied the test for an extension of time, noting the short delay, lack of actual prejudice to the landlord, and the principle that a party should not be deprived of the right to appeal where there is no real prejudice, even if merits are difficult to see.

The court granted the extension of time on terms, including an expedited appeal and a case conference to address rent and arrears.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract after an aborted real estate transaction.

The parties subsequently negotiated a revised agreement of purchase and sale, which eventually closed.

The plaintiffs later amended their claim, arguing the subsequent sale was merely in mitigation of damages and sought the difference in purchase price.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing the subsequent sale was part of a settlement agreement that resolved the litigation.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that the objective interpretation of the parties' communications and conduct demonstrated an intention to settle the litigation by reviving the transaction, exchanging mutual releases, and dismissing the claims without costs.

The action and counterclaim were dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought a declaration of oppression against the condominium corporation under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging failure to address noise complaints, security concerns, and maintenance disparities between different buildings within the condominium.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the corporation acted reasonably in addressing noise issues and that the applicant's other complaints regarding security and maintenance did not constitute oppressive conduct.

The court applied the two-part test for oppression remedy, emphasizing the objective reasonableness of expectations and deferring to the board's business judgment in balancing the interests of all unit owners.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that required him to pay $50,000 in rent arrears to void an eviction order, arguing this exceeded the Board's $35,000 monetary jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that while the Board cannot issue a standalone order for payment exceeding $35,000, this limit does not apply to the conditions a tenant must satisfy to void a termination order under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court held that restricting 'pay to stay' conditions to the monetary limit would result in an absurdity, allowing tenants to obtain rent abatements by accumulating massive arrears.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying his motion to set aside an eviction order.

The tenant had signed an agreement to terminate his tenancy in exchange for compensation but later argued he did so under duress and due to misrepresentations by the landlord's agent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to consider the evidence of misrepresentation and the landlord's good faith as required by sections 77(8) and 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The eviction orders were set aside.

The appellant tenant sought a stay of an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) due to non-payment of rent.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal, considering whether there was a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that the appellant failed to raise a serious issue on a question of law, as her grounds of appeal primarily involved questions of fact (misapprehension of evidence, novation).

Furthermore, the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish irreparable harm beyond the inherent loss of a home in tenancy cases.

Considering the protracted nature of the dispute and the landlord's entitlement to resolution, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, concluding that it was not in the interests of justice to grant it.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering her eviction.

She argued that she was a 'tenant' under s. 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act at the time the property was converted to a condominium in 2011, either by living with her parents and paying rent, or by being an 'heir' to her living parents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the first issue was a question of mixed fact and law not subject to appeal.

On the second issue, the court held that the phrase 'tenant's heirs' in s. 2(1) does not include children of a living tenant, noting that the legislature specifically provided protections for spouses of deceased tenants but not children.

The eviction order was upheld.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no submissions on costs were made, the court made no order as to costs.

The tenants brought a motion to quash the landlord's appeal of an interim order by the Landlord and Tenant Board that required the landlord to return possession of their residential units following an illegal lockout.

The landlord had refused the tenants access to their units after a minor fire, despite a city order permitting access.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the Board's order was interlocutory and therefore not subject to appeal.

The court also held that the landlord's appeal was an abuse of process intended to delay proceedings and subvert the tenants' presumptive right to occupy their homes.

The applicant, Polchil Homes Ltd., sought relief under the Condominium Act for oppression by the respondent condominium corporation, alleging unreasonable delay in renovation approval and unlawful lockout from its unit.

The applicant also sought damages under the Human Rights Code based on assigned claims from its principal and her fiancé.

The court dismissed the Human Rights Code claim, finding that such claims cannot be assigned to a corporation for civil proceedings.

The court also dismissed the claim regarding renovation approval delay, finding no oppressive conduct.

However, the court found that the corporation's act of locking the applicant out of its unit for 18 days was oppressive and unlawful.

As a remedy for this oppression, the court awarded $10,000 in general damages to the applicant and ordered the removal of $7,468.27 in legal fees charged back to the applicant's ledger by the corporation.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and a subsequent order denying a review.

The Board found that the landlord required the rental unit in good faith for his own occupation and that the tenants failed to establish the existence of a three-year lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's factual conclusions were supported by evidence, including the landlord leaving his personal belongings in the unit, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in the Board's treatment of hearsay evidence.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision but failed to pay rent or rental arrears since October 2022, despite an undertaking to bring arrears up to date.

The tenant claimed inability to pay due to a slip and fall on the landlord's property.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable excuse for the failure to pay rent and dismissed the appeal as abandoned, awarding $5,000 in costs to the respondent landlord.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord to demolish the rental unit.

The tenants argued the Board erred in finding the landlord took all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary demolition permit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding was one of fact or mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

Furthermore, the court found the Board correctly interpreted the legislation in determining that only the demolition permit, not a building permit, was relevant, and that vacant possession was required to obtain it.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board review order that denied a request to review a consent eviction order.

At a case management conference, the court considered whether to lift the automatic stay of eviction pending appeal.

The court ordered the tenant to pay $12,000 in acknowledged rent arrears and ongoing monthly rent of $1,345 as a condition of maintaining the stay of the eviction order.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenants' appeal for delay and to lift the automatic stay of eviction.

The tenants had failed to perfect their appeal within the prescribed time, failed to comply with court-ordered payment directions, and did not respond to the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for delay by analogy to Rule 61.13(3.1) and ordered the tenants to pay costs.

The appellant landlord brought four appeals from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing its applications to terminate tenancies for persistent late payment of rent.

Following the Board's decision, the landlord proceeded with separate applications for non-payment of rent, resulting in one eviction order and three consent orders settling the arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as moot, finding no live controversy between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matters on the basis of judicial economy.