Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| (28 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Landlord Tenant]]
| |
|
| |
|
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/j5rn4 Furr v. Courtland Mews Cooperative Housing Inc., 2020 ONSC 1175 (CanLII)]==
| |
|
| |
| [16] The appellant maintains that the Vice-Chair, although citing the language of s. 94.2(1), did not apply the test as interpreted by the Board in other cases. The Vice-Chair’s formulation did not, he argues, include the necessary elements of seriousness and gravity and did not address the question of whether there was evidence of an “intention” to act on any verbal threats.
| |
|
| |
| [17] I do not agree with this argument. The Vice-Chair’s formulation of the test falls well within the range of the jurisprudence cited. In [http://canlii.ca/t/hs66p 2276761 Ontario Inc. v. Overall, 2018 ONSC 3264], the Divisional Court made it clear that <b><u>serious impairment of safety includes both actual impairment and a real risk of impairment. In other cases, the Board has held that it is not necessary that anyone has actually been hurt or injured</b> and that a serious impairment of safety may include:
| |
|
| |
| ::(i) the potential for an outcome that has the risk of a substantial negative effect on a person’s well-being;
| |
|
| |
| ::(ii) a foreseeable act or omission that could result in or may result in a serious impairment to safety; and
| |
|
| |
| ::(iii) extremely loud and intense arguments could easily result in violence and would be a safety hazard.</u>
| |
|
| |
| [18] There was no error of law in the Vice-Chair’s formulation of the applicable legal test. The appellant’s real complaint is with the Vic-Chair’s application of this test to the facts. This, however, subject to the next ground of appeal, is not a question of law but a question of mixed fact and law and is, therefore, not subject to appeal under the RTA.
| |
|
| |
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/hs66p 2276761 Ontario Inc. v. Overall, 2018 ONSC 3264 (CanLII)]==
| |
|
| |
| '''The Tenants’ Main Ground of Appeal
| |
|
| |
| [11] The tenants argue that the board erred in relying on the fact that their cats were not vaccinated as a ground for eviction where (a) lack of vaccination of the cats was not listed as a ground relied upon in the landlord’s N-7 Notice; and (b) there was no fair notice that vaccination was in issue.
| |
Latest revision as of 03:04, 31 July 2020
