Lulu Holdings v. Arnold: Divisional Court Quashes Tenant's Appeal
Divisional Court quashes tenant's appeal of LTB review decision, citing lack of legal question and abuse of process in eviction case
Summarized by RentZenLast updated: August 16, 2024
Case Summary
Decision in favor of
landlord
Balance Owed
-
Dispute Categories
Agree with the ruling?
Timeline
Hearing Date
Jun 2023
Order Date
Jun 8, 2023
Tenancy End Date
Oct 2023
Dispute Summary
The Tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) consent order requiring him to vacate the rental unit for demolition. The Divisional Court previously quashed an appeal of this consent order. The Tenant then sought review of the consent order, which the LTB dismissed. The Tenant appealed this dismissal, and the Landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal.
Determinations
- Appeal does not raise a question of law
- Appeal is devoid of merit
- Appeal constitutes an abuse of process
- Tenant's arguments relate to issues already decided or fail to identify errors of law
Case Study
The court found that the appeal should be quashed because it did not raise a question of law, was devoid of merit, and constituted an abuse of process. The Tenant's arguments either related to issues already decided in the consent order (which required leave to appeal) or failed to identify any error of law in the LTB's review decision.
Arguments and Actions
Landlord
Arguments
The Landlord argued that no appeal lies from a consent order without leave, no question of law is involved in the appeal, and the appeal is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
Actions
The Landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal and lift the automatic stay of eviction.
Tenant
Arguments
The Tenant argued that Lulu Holdings Inc. was not the property owner and had no legal right to demolish the rental unit. He claimed the eviction was based on serious errors and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Actions
The Tenant consented to eviction, then appealed the consent order. After settlement discussions, the Tenant filed for review of the consent order. When the review was dismissed, the Tenant filed another appeal.
Procedural Errors
Appealing a consent order without leave, raising issues already dismissed by the court
Aggravating Factors
Repeatedly reaching agreements and failing to fulfill them, taking steps to postpone tenancy termination while not paying rent
Decision Summary
The court quashed the Tenant's appeal of the LTB's review decision, finding it did not raise a question of law, was devoid of merit, and constituted an abuse of process. The Tenant was ordered to pay $9,000 in rent monthly from June to September 2023, with eviction permitted starting October 1, 2023 if payments are made. If any payment is missed, the Landlord may seek immediate eviction.
Adjudicator Details
Divisional Court
Total Orders
8
Landlord Favorable
75.0%
Tenant Favorable
25.0%
Mutual Agreement
0.0%
Need assistance from an expert?
Sponsored
Financial Details
Lawful Rent
$9,000
Source
Similar Cases
Click to switch between case outcomes
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Sripathy v Chilvers
Waterdown landlords regain possession of rental unit for personal use, tenant must vacate by January 31, 2025.
Singh v Gray
LTB upholds consent order terminating tenancy for non-payment of rent in Toronto.
Yassin v Smith
Pickering tenant faces potential eviction after dispute over rent increase and arrears
Hazelview Property Services Inc. v Fatemi
Toronto tenant evicted for non-payment of rent, owes $8,938.24 to landlord.
Goklani v Cannata
Toronto tenants' maintenance dispute against landlord dismissed by LTB
Jeff v Ferguson
Woodstock landlords awarded $35,186 in rent arrears, tenants face eviction for non-payment.
Oxford Properties Group v Benjamin
Tenant ordered to pay $22,461.70 for flood damage with conditional tenancy preservation
Sufi Properties Ltd v Nieman
Tenants ordered to pay $16,866 in rent arrears to Former Landlord after complex dispute.