When a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision goes against you, the frustration can be overwhelming. However, not every unfavorable decision can be appealed, and the appeal process to Ontario's Divisional Court is fraught with technical requirements and strict limitations. This comprehensive guide examines real cases to decode the appeal process, revealing when appeals succeed, why most fail, and how to navigate this complex legal terrain.
Understanding the Divisional Court's Limited Jurisdiction
The most crucial fact about appealing LTB decisions is this: the Divisional Court can only hear appeals on questions of law—not questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. This fundamental limitation eliminates the vast majority of potential appeals before they even begin.
What Constitutes a "Question of Law"
Questions of law involve the interpretation and application of legal principles, statutes, and regulations. They include:
- Procedural fairness violations
- Jurisdictional errors
- Misinterpretation of statutory provisions
- Failure to consider mandatory legal factors
- Errors in legal tests or standards
What Cannot Be Appealed
The following cannot form the basis of a Divisional Court appeal:
- Factual Findings: Whether events actually occurred
- Credibility Assessments: Who the LTB believed
- Discretionary Decisions: How the LTB exercised its discretion under section 83
- Mixed Questions: Issues involving both law and fact
Common Reasons Appeals Fail
1. Challenging Factual Findings
The case of dannis-v-roele perfectly illustrates this trap. Tenants appealed an LTB eviction order, arguing the adjudicator "erred in law by failing to apply the burden of proof correctly and by not requiring corroboration of Landlords' evidence." However, the Divisional Court found that "the appeal raised questions of fact and mixed fact and law, rather than questions of law alone as required for appeals from LTB decisions."
Similarly, in ladowsky-v-chernyshova, a tenant's appeal was dismissed as "frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process" because "the appeal did not raise any questions of law and was therefore frivolous and an abuse of process."
2. Attacking Credibility Determinations
In burton-v-simmons, the court ruled that "determining whether the tenant was a superintendent was a question of mixed fact and law, which could not be appealed to the Divisional Court." The tenant was essentially challenging the LTB's factual findings about the employment relationship.
3. Challenging Discretionary Decisions
The case of draxl-v-truevine-investments-ltd demonstrates this error. The court found that "appeals of LTB decisions to the Divisional Court are only permitted on questions of law, not fact or mixed fact and law." The tenant was challenging the Board's exercise of discretion, which is not appealable.
When Appeals Can Succeed: Procedural Fairness
The most successful ground for LTB appeals is procedural fairness violations, which are considered questions of law. However, even these must be genuine and substantial.
Successful Procedural Fairness Claims
In draxl-v-truevine, the court found that "the appeal raised procedural fairness issue, which is a question of law" and was "not manifestly devoid of merit." The court allowed the appeal to proceed because procedural fairness violations constitute legal errors.
The High Bar for Procedural Fairness
However, not all procedural fairness claims succeed. In mcdonald-v-menicucci, tenants argued inadequate notice, but the court found "the claim of inadequate notice did not raise a valid issue of procedural fairness" and dismissed the appeal.
Special Requirements for Consent Orders
Appeals from consent orders face additional hurdles and require leave to appeal under section 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.
The Leave Requirement
In li-v-gibson, the court quashed a tenant's appeal because "it was an appeal of a consent order without leave" and "the grounds of appeal did not raise questions of law as required." The court emphasized that consent orders can only be appealed with permission.
The case of hughes-v-mehraban reinforces this: "Leave to appeal is required for consent LTB order" and the "Notice of Appeal [was] quashed" because proper leave wasn't obtained.
Limited Grounds for Setting Aside Consent Orders
Even with leave, consent orders can only be set aside on very limited grounds, as established in ravadgar-v-kaftroudi: "Leave to appeal is required for consent orders from the LTB, even when the consent itself is disputed."
The Abuse of Process Trap
Many appeals are dismissed as abuse of process when they're brought solely to delay enforcement of LTB orders.
Identifying Abuse of Process
The case of oladunjoye-v-jonker shows classic abuse of process behavior. The court found the appeal was "an abuse of process to delay eviction" where tenants were "gaming the system" by using appeals while continuing not to pay rent.
In eldebron-holdings-limited-v-mason, the court noted the tenant had "a history of 'gaming the system' by not paying rent and appealing eviction orders to obtain stays of proceedings."
Legitimate vs. Abusive Appeals
However, not all appeals by non-paying tenants are abusive. In draxl-v-truevine, the court found the "appeal was not brought solely to delay eviction, as the tenant had taken steps to perfect the appeal and make partial rent payments."
Procedural Requirements and Deadlines
Perfecting the Appeal
Appeals must be "perfected" within strict deadlines. In midwest-property-ltd-v-pare, the court "dismissed the tenant's appeal for delay due to the tenant's failure to perfect the appeal within the agreed-upon schedule."
Case Management and Scheduling
The Divisional Court operates under strict case management rules. In hasselsjo-v-dernetro-holdings, the tenant "failed to perfect her appeal within the deadline set by the court," leading to dismissal.
The Automatic Stay and Its Consequences
Filing an appeal automatically stays (suspends) the LTB order, but this stay can be lifted if the appeal lacks merit.
When Stays Are Lifted
In baig-v-williams, the court "lifted the stay on the eviction order, allowing it to be enforced" after dismissing the appeal. The tenant had accumulated "$52,500 in arrears" while the stay was in effect.
Conditional Stays
Courts may impose conditions on maintaining stays. In draxl-v-truevine, the court "imposed conditions on the tenant to pay monthly rent and $700 per month towards arrears" to maintain the stay.
Costs Consequences
Unsuccessful appeals often result in substantial cost awards against the appellant.
Significant Cost Awards
- In fernandes-v-golle: "$9,000 in costs"
- In hasselsjo-v-dernetro-holdings: "$10,000 in costs"
- In mcdonald-v-menicucci: "$3500 in costs"
- In eldebron-holdings-limited-v-mason: "$5,639.08 in substantial indemnity costs"
Factors Affecting Costs
Courts consider several factors when awarding costs:
- Whether the appeal was frivolous or vexatious
- The degree of success or failure
- The conduct of the parties
- The complexity of the issues
- The time and effort required
Vexatious Litigant Declarations
Repeated frivolous appeals can result in being declared a vexatious litigant, severely restricting future legal proceedings.
The Vexatious Litigant Process
In zm-v-jz, after the "Divisional Court dismissed Tenant's appeals and awarded costs against her," the LTB "declared the Tenant to be a vexatious litigant" and prohibited new proceedings without Board consent.
The case of zalcman-v-medicoff shows the progression: the court "prohibited [the tenant] from commencing further proceedings without leave" due to a "pattern of disrespecting orders and manipulating the legal process."
Strategic Considerations for Potential Appellants
Before Filing an Appeal
Ask These Critical Questions:
-
Does your case raise a genuine question of law? Review the LTB's legal reasoning, not just the outcome.
-
Can you identify specific legal errors? Procedural fairness violations, jurisdictional errors, or misapplication of legal tests.
-
Is this a consent order? If so, you'll need leave to appeal first.
-
Are you financially prepared? Consider potential cost awards of $5,000-$10,000 or more.
-
Do you have legitimate grounds or are you just disappointed with the outcome? Disappointment with factual findings is not appealable.
Preparing a Strong Appeal
Essential Elements:
-
Clear Legal Error: Identify specific legal mistakes, not factual disagreements.
-
Procedural Fairness Issues: Document any denial of natural justice or fair hearing rights.
-
Jurisdictional Problems: Show the LTB exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
-
Statutory Misinterpretation: Demonstrate misapplication of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Alternative Remedies
LTB Review Process
Before considering an appeal, exhaust the LTB's internal review process. Reviews can address:
- Serious errors in the order or proceedings
- Inability to participate reasonably in the hearing
- New evidence that wasn't available at the original hearing
Judicial Review
In rare cases, judicial review may be available for jurisdictional issues, though as shown in potomski-v-landlord-and-tenant-board, "an appeal under s.210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act might be the appropriate procedure for challenging the LTB decision on questions of law."
Practical Tips for Success
1. Get Legal Advice Early
The complexity of appeal requirements makes legal representation almost essential. Many self-represented litigants fail on technical grounds.
2. Focus on Legal Issues
Avoid the temptation to relitigate factual disputes. Focus exclusively on legal errors.
3. Meet All Deadlines
The court system is unforgiving about missed deadlines. Perfect your appeal on time and comply with all procedural requirements.
4. Consider the Costs
Weigh the potential cost awards against the likelihood of success and the value of what you're trying to achieve.
5. Document Everything
Maintain detailed records of all procedural steps and communications with the court.
When Not to Appeal
Clear Indicators an Appeal Will Fail
- You disagree with the LTB's factual findings
- You think the LTB should have believed your witnesses over the other party's
- You're unhappy with how the LTB exercised its discretion under section 83
- You want to relitigate the same issues with different arguments
- You're primarily seeking to delay enforcement of the order
The Reality Check
The harsh reality is that most LTB appeals fail. The Divisional Court's jurisdiction is extremely limited, and the technical requirements are strict. As demonstrated by the cases examined, appeals succeed only when there are genuine legal errors—not when parties are simply unhappy with unfavorable factual findings.
Success Rates and Expectations
While exact statistics aren't publicly available, the case law suggests that the vast majority of LTB appeals are either:
- Quashed for lack of jurisdiction
- Dismissed as frivolous or vexatious
- Dismissed for procedural failures
Successful appeals typically involve clear procedural fairness violations or obvious jurisdictional errors.
Conclusion: Navigate with Caution
The appeal process from LTB decisions to the Divisional Court is a narrow path with many pitfalls. Success requires:
Legal Prerequisites:
- A genuine question of law (not fact)
- Proper procedural compliance
- Leave to appeal (for consent orders)
- Timely perfection of the appeal
Practical Considerations:
- Substantial cost risks
- Automatic stay of LTB orders
- Potential vexatious litigant designation
- Limited chances of success
Strategic Approach:
- Exhaust LTB review processes first
- Obtain competent legal advice
- Focus exclusively on legal errors
- Consider alternative dispute resolution
The cases examined reveal a consistent pattern: the Divisional Court rigorously enforces its jurisdictional limits and has little patience for appeals that are really just attempts to relitigate factual disputes or delay enforcement of valid LTB orders.
If you're considering an appeal, ask yourself honestly: Do you have a genuine legal error to challenge, or are you simply unhappy with how the facts were found and weighed? The answer to that question will likely determine whether your appeal has any chance of success.
Remember that the LTB system, while not perfect, is designed to provide accessible and efficient resolution of landlord-tenant disputes. The appeal process exists as a safety valve for genuine legal errors, not as a second chance to argue your case. Use it wisely, or risk significant financial and legal consequences.
