A recent decision demonstrates
just how easy it is for residential tenants to game the system and
live rent free.
The tenant entered into a one year lease for a residential
premises in mid-town Toronto. The lease started March 1, 2015
and the monthly rent was $3,800.
By September 2015, the tenant had started paying rent late. By
January 2016, he had stopped paying rent completely.
At a hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board on June 16, 2016,
the Board ordered the termination of the tenancy on
consent and ordered the tenant to pay over $22,000 in
arrears and compensation owing up to that date. The tenant was
ordered to move out of the premises before June 30, 2016.
On July 8, 2016, the tenant filed a request to review the
termination order with the Board. That request was refused without
a hearing on July 13, 2016.
The tenant then filed an appeal to the Divisional Court on July
18, 2016, which resulted in an automatic stay of the eviction
The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal. By the time
the motion was heard on September 30, 2016, the tenant, who
continued to reside in the premises, had not paid any rent for the
previous 9 months and now owed the landlord nearly $34,000.
The Divisional Court judge hearing the motion found the notice
of appeal to be "generic in nature, and raises no issue that
could conceivably provide an understanding of the basis for an
appeal, far less an arguable basis."
The tenant filed no responding material to the landlord's
motion. In oral argument, the tenant's only submission was that
he did not have the money to pay the debt but was hopeful that his
circumstances would soon change.
The Divisional Court judge granted the motion, quashed the
appeal and set aside the stay of the eviction order.
It is hard to determine which part of this case is the most
outrageous; the fact that the tenant was permitted to appeal a
consent order and obtain a stay of the eviction order in the
interim, or the fact that the tenant's appeal was permitted to
proceed when the notice of appeal was so flagrantly devoid of
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Russell v. Township of Georgian Bay provides a useful reminder of the fact that while municipal officials sometimes appear to hold all of the cards in disputes with home owners, that is not always the case.
The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that courts will generally support and uphold decisions of condominium directors because they are better positioned than judges to make decisions pertaining to their buildings.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).