Legal Cases | Levitt Di Lella Duggan & Chaplick LLP

Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) – Lalsee v. Friginette

This is as flagrant an abuse of the court process as I have encountered. The appellant has occupied the premises since Nov. 11, 2010 without making a single rental payment. The Board terminated his tenancy and ordered him to vacate by July 17, 2011. He did not do so. On Aug. 8, 2011 he requested a review. The hearing was scheduled for Oct. 21, 2011. Friginette appeared with counsel, a settlement was negotiated and ON CONSENT the request for review was denied and the eviction order was confirmed. It is that consent order that Friginette has appealed.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) – Pyle v. Westdale Properties

Ledreman J.: On consent, order to go quashing the appeal. In view of the history of this and prior proceedings, the landlord will have its costs fixed at $ 3,000. payable by the tenant within 30 days.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Schneiderman v. Dis Avenue (Part I)

In this application I released reasons for decision on November 23, 2012. I have now received submissions on costs from both Mr. Schneiderman and from Horklick Levitt Di Lella LLP who were the solicitors of the Respondent on the application. Mr. Schneiderman points out to a number of factors which he submits should reduce the amount being asked by the Respondents to an aggregate of $2,610.87. He does so pointing out that there was waiting time in court and that the Respondent’s counsel spent 2.6 hours between November 23 and 30, 2012 preparing costs submissions.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Schneiderman v. Dis Avenue (Part II)

The applicant seeks a determination of rights under the Residential Tenancies Act, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“the RTA”). The issues raised in this Application raise the following questions: If at the time of commencement of an application by a landlord for relief against a tenant under the RTA, there is a landlord and tenant relationship but that relationship is at an end by the time the matter comes on for hearing, does the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) still have jurisdiction to determine the Application or has that jurisdiction been lost when the landlord and tenant relationship has been ended

Ontario Court of Appeal – Slapsys v. Abrams

This is an appeal from an order of the Divisional Court that affirmed the decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board allowing the tenant’s landlord to evict him on the ground the landlord required the premises for his own residential occupation. The main issue in this appeal is whether s. 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, permits a sole shareholder of a corporation as “landlord” to evict a tenant of a residential unit owned by that corporation, if the shareholder requires possession for personal occupancy.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) – Whittaker v. Elsbury

Mr. Whittaker has not appeared, although he was duly served, as appears from the affidavit of Natasha Baksh, sworn April 7, 2011, which indicates that the Motion Record, Factum + Brief of Authorities were sent to Mr. Whittaker by letter mail on that date at his last known address. Mr. Levitt has provided a letter dated April 20, 2011, from Mr. Whittaker, indicating that he has received the motion material, although he disputes the timeline of service. He has not appeared today, however, to raise the issue.