Tracy Heffernan

The appellants brought an application alleging that the federal and provincial governments violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to implement effective strategies to reduce homelessness and inadequate housing.

The respondents successfully moved to strike the application on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was not justiciable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application raised political rather than legal issues, lacked a judicially discoverable and manageable standard, and was therefore not justiciable.

The applicants brought an application alleging that the provincial and federal governments breached ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter by making decisions and implementing program changes which eroded access to affordable housing.

The respondents brought motions to dismiss the application on the grounds that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the issues raised were not justiciable.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the application, finding that s. 7 does not impose a positive obligation on the state to provide affordable housing, and the impugned decisions did not deny the applicants a benefit given to others under s. 15.

The court also held that the issues raised were not justiciable as they involved broad policy choices.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an eviction order.

The appellants argued they did not receive a fair hearing due to mental illness and that the Tribunal failed to inquire whether the landlord accommodated the disability regarding late rent payments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal Member provided adequate guidance to the self-represented appellant and that there was no evidence the landlord was ever advised of the disability during the tenancy.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board on the basis of procedural fairness.

The tenant missed the hearing because she mistakenly believed it was scheduled for September 28 instead of September 21.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's confusion was understandable given the Board's internal documentation and previous discussions.

Emphasizing that natural justice requires a broad interpretation of being reasonably able to participate, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a different Member for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her application to terminate a tenancy for personal use.

This was the third such application regarding the same unit.

The Board dismissed the application based on issue estoppel, finding that the true landlord remained a numbered company, which is precluded from terminating a tenancy for personal use under the Tenant Protection Act.

The Divisional Court found no error of law in the result and dismissed the appeal, noting that subjecting the tenant to further proceedings without clear evidence of a change in ownership approached an abuse of process.

The tenant appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting an eviction for landlord's own use.

A previous application had been dismissed because the landlord was a corporation, which cannot occupy a residential unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator on the second application erred in law by failing to apply res judicata and failing to consider whether the individual respondent was a privy of the corporate landlord.

The adjudicator also failed to weigh evidence of bad faith.

The eviction order was set aside.

The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal appealed a Superior Court decision quashing its interim order that allowed a subset of tenants to testify on behalf of over 300 tenants in a rent abatement application.

The Superior Court had ruled the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to authorize what it characterized as a representative action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's order did not create a representative action but rather approved an expeditious procedural method for introducing oral evidence in a combined multi-party application, which was within its jurisdiction under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (MTHA) sought judicial review of an interim order by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that allowed 11 tenants to give representative evidence on behalf of 312 tenants in a rent abatement application.

The tenants claimed the MTHA interfered with their reasonable enjoyment during balcony repairs.

The Divisional Court granted leave for judicial review due to urgency and quashed the Tribunal's order.

The Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the Tenant Protection Act to permit a representative action, distinguishing it from the former Landlord and Tenant Act which explicitly allowed such proceedings.