William Alexander Florence

The tenant appealed a Divisional Court order upholding a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for the landlord's own use.

The tenant argued the eviction application was invalid because the landlord failed to disclose a previous N12 notice, contrary to s. 71.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant also argued he was denied procedural fairness because his cognitive impairments prevented him from reasonably participating in the hearing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the mandatory disclosure requirements under s. 71.1 render an application invalid if breached.

Furthermore, the Board erred in its s. 209(2) review by narrowly focusing on whether the tenant received the hearing notice, while failing to consider his capacity to participate and whether eviction should be refused under s. 83.

The eviction application was quashed.

The City of Kingston sought a permanent injunction to dismantle a homeless encampment in Belle Park, citing safety and public use concerns.

Respondents argued the By-Law prohibiting camping violated sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the By-Law was unconstitutional insofar as it prohibited homeless individuals from erecting temporary overnight shelter in public parks, as this grossly disproportionately affected their life, liberty, and security of the person.

However, the court did not extend this finding to daytime sheltering due to insufficient evidence.

The City's application for injunctive relief was dismissed because the proposed terms were too broad and did not comply with the ruling.

The appellant appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) decision denying him income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the SBT erred in law by ignoring evidence of his mental health impairments, engaging in discriminatory reasoning regarding his substance use disorder, and failing to apply the 'whole person' test.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the SBT misapprehended the appellant's testimony, made contradictory findings, and improperly blamed the appellant for his inability to comply with treatment due to his disabilities.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel of the SBT for a new hearing.

The tenants appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing the N5 notice of termination was void due to technical defects, specifically a missing bullet point and the inclusion of both repair and replacement costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the notice was compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act because a reasonable person would understand their options to void the notice.

The applicant filed a third human rights application and sought to have it consolidated with her two previous applications.

The respondent consented to the consolidation.

The Tribunal consolidated the applications and considered whether to defer them pending the conclusion of an ongoing arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

Despite the applicant's objections regarding the speed of the GSB proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the consolidated applications, noting that the grievance process was active and a mechanism was in place to address post-July 2013 issues.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, requesting it be consolidated with her first application.

The respondent did not oppose consolidation.

The Tribunal consolidated the applications but deferred the second application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration process before the Grievance Settlement Board, which was dealing with the same human rights issues.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's responsibility to maintain an elevator under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board was entitled to construe its home statute to consider the landlord's actions in the circumstances.

Finding no error of law, the court dismissed the appeal.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) during eviction proceedings.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her mental health challenges by not granting additional time to provide financial information for her housing subsidy.

The Tribunal found that the LTB proceeding focused on eviction for non-payment of rent and did not adjudicate the human rights issue of failure to accommodate.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.