Timothy M. Duggan

The appellant appealed a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal ordering him to remove a structure, originally gym equipment, from his balcony.

The Tribunal found the structure was not 'seasonal furniture' permitted under the condominium rules.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence by ignoring dictionary definitions and erred by relying on a Google search not in evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and no error of law, as the appellant had not objected to the Google search at the hearing.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $35,000, citing the plaintiff's uncooperative conduct and failure to produce affiants for cross-examination despite a court-ordered timetable.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a substantial indemnity scale fixed at $35,000, finding the plaintiff's lack of cooperation glaring.

The court declined to order the plaintiff's principal personally liable for the costs, noting that the defendants' corporate remedies as minority shareholders remained to be decided.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for persistent late payment of rent and the landlord's need for the unit for a family member.

The tenant argued the Board erred by refusing an adjournment and denying procedural fairness when he failed to attend the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law, as the Board reasonably refused the adjournment due to a lack of supporting evidence and offered the tenant an opportunity to participate by telephone.

The eviction order was upheld, though enforcement was delayed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment holding him liable for rent arrears and property damage.

The appellant had signed a residential lease for a friend but never occupied the unit.

He argued he was not a tenant, the lease was assigned, and the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was a tenant who failed to terminate the lease, and confirmed that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction over claims for arrears and damages when the tenant is no longer in possession of the rental unit.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

She argued there was a lack of procedural fairness because the Board relied on prior mediated agreements and she could not cross-examine the landlord's representative.

She also argued the Board erred in refusing to grant relief from eviction under s. 83(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, as the prior orders were not confidential and the tenant did not object or request an adjournment.

The Court also found no error in principle in the Board's exercise of discretion to refuse relief from eviction.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim, arguing it duplicated an existing application the defendants had filed at the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding an alleged bad faith eviction.

The court found that the counterclaim was an abuse of process as it arose from the same factual matrix and sought the same relief as the tribunal application.

The counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down or restrict a competing deli opened by two former long-term employees.

The plaintiff argued the employees were fiduciaries.

The court found the employees were managers but not fiduciaries, as they lacked strategic authority and the employer was not peculiarly vulnerable to their departure.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering his eviction on the basis that the landlord sold the rental unit to her brother, who required it for personal use.

The tenant argued the Board denied him procedural fairness by curtailing his cross-examination and refusing to compel the unredacted agreement of purchase and sale.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the Board had discretion to control its process, it erred in law by precluding the tenant from testing critical evidence regarding the bona fides of the sale transaction, specifically the purchase price and payment terms.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing.

This decision addresses a motion to quash an appeal for want of jurisdiction, brought by Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1466 against Stuart Weinstein.

The Court of Appeal determined that section 49 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, applied, meaning leave was required for the appeal.

Stuart Weinstein, acting in person, then sought leave to appeal.

The court quashed the appeal and refused leave to appeal, finding that the criteria for granting leave were not met.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff sought costs following the dismissal of her motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction against the defendant condominium corporation.

The motion was dismissed based on the defendant's undertaking to provide alternative accommodation.

The court found that although the defendant was technically the successful party, the plaintiff was entitled to costs because it was reasonable for her to seek court intervention and the dismissal was on terms.

The court awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in costs.

The appellant hired the respondent for leasehold improvements and failed to pay the final invoice balance.

More than two years after the last payment, the respondent commenced a Small Claims Court action.

The trial judge found that a text message sent by the appellant constituted an acknowledgment of the debt under s. 13 of the Limitations Act, 2002, extending the limitation period.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding the text message was a clear acknowledgment and that the unique identifiers of a cellular phone satisfy the signature requirement under s. 13(10) of the Act.

The plaintiff unit owner brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction against the defendant condominium corporation, seeking orders for expert opinions, alternative accommodation, and repairs to her unit following water damage and mould contamination originating from the common elements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold of a strong prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, particularly given the condominium corporation's undertaking to pay $100 per day for alternative accommodation and to repair the unit.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had not paid rent for 18 months, accumulating over $30,000 in arrears, and appealed the eviction order, which triggered an automatic stay.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was an abuse of process designed to 'game the system' by securing a stay without any intention of paying rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, the stay was lifted, and the tenant was ordered to vacate the premises.

The tenants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including a consent eviction order and a refusal to extend the time to pay rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's orders and noting that the appeal was filed out of time.

The Court concluded that the appeal was an abuse of process intended solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction and allow the tenants to remain in the property without paying rent.

The moving defendant sought to set aside four default judgments obtained against him in 2011.

He argued that he was unaware of the defaults because his former lawyer failed to defend him or notify him of the proceedings, and improperly withdrew from the record.

The court applied the Mountain View factors and found that the defendant moved promptly upon discovering the judgments, had a plausible explanation for the default due to his counsel's inadvertence, and presented an arguable defence on the merits.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgments and notings of default.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board denying an adjournment of eviction proceedings pending the resolution of her Human Rights Tribunal application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had already found new accommodation and vacated the premises.

The court noted this dismissal does not affect her ongoing human rights application regarding the cancellation of her rent-geared-to-income subsidy.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering their eviction for failing to comply with a previous Board order.

The previous order required the tenants to remove items, including a fence made of sticks and pinecones, from the common area adjacent to their unit.

The tenants argued they were denied procedural fairness, the Board was biased, and the Board applied the wrong legal test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the landlord was entitled to apply for eviction without notice under section 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act after the tenants breached the conditions of the previous order.

The court also found no evidence of bias and held that the Board's findings of fact were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The tenant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant argued he was entitled to withhold rent because the landlord failed to provide its address under s. 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the single judge's decision that the issue was one of mixed fact and law.

The court noted the tenant had lived rent-free for 16 months and owed over $40,000 in arrears.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a declaration that a requisition for an owners' meeting and the subsequent notice of meeting delivered by a unit owner were invalid, and an injunction prohibiting the meeting.

The unit owner sought to remove board members and repeal a rule limiting short-term rentals.

The court found the notice of meeting was void because it did not comply with the mandatory notice, form, and timing requirements of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the validity of the requisition signatures, irreparable harm if the corporation were stripped of its board and management without a transition plan, and the balance of convenience favouring the applicant since an annual general meeting was scheduled shortly thereafter.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an urgent case conference to schedule an injunction application to prohibit a requisitioned unitholders' meeting.

The applicant argued the requisition did not comply with the Condominium Act, 1998.

Over 70 unitholders participated in the case conference, raising concerns about management and short-term rentals.

The court scheduled the injunction hearing and set a timetable for the delivery of materials, urging the parties to communicate and resolve their issues amicably.