Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The landlord sought to lift a stay of an eviction order granted by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

• The tenant failed to comply with court-ordered payment terms set as a condition for maintaining the stay pending appeal.

• The total arrears acknowledged by the tenant, including post-order unpaid rent, amounted to over $12,700.

• The landlord submitted uncontested affidavit evidence showing the tenant had not made any payments since August 2024.

• The court found that no response was filed within the required seven-day period, accepting the landlord's evidence as uncontested.

• The stay of eviction was lifted, allowing the landlord to proceed with enforcement of the eviction order.

Background and procedural context
This case concerns a landlord-tenant dispute between Axes Investments Inc. and Carolyn Northcote, centered on a February 5, 2025, eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). The dispute proceeded to the Ontario Divisional Court after Ms. Northcote appealed the LTB decision. As part of the appellate process, Justice O’Brien had previously granted a stay of the eviction, conditional on the tenant meeting specific payment obligations while the appeal was pending.

Conditions for the stay and tenant’s non-compliance
The terms imposed by the court required Ms. Northcote to pay ongoing monthly rent of $1,914, starting May 1, 2025, and to make two arrears payments of $6,373.35 each—due April 15 and May 15, 2025. These payments represented outstanding rent and compensation already acknowledged by the tenant as due. The stay was explicitly contingent on compliance with these payment terms, with clear instructions that a failure to pay could result in the stay being lifted upon motion by the landlord.

Landlord’s motion and tenant’s lack of response
On April 22, 2025, the landlord brought a motion supported by affidavit evidence stating that Ms. Northcote had failed to make the required April 15 arrears payment and had not paid any rent since August 2024. The total outstanding amount had grown to over $18,000. Under the directions given at the case conference, Ms. Northcote had seven days to respond to the motion. However, she filed no response within that time.

Court’s findings and lifting of the stay
Justice O’Brien ruled in favour of the landlord, accepting the evidence as uncontested and finding that the tenant had breached the court-imposed conditions for the stay. As a result, the stay of the LTB eviction order was lifted, authorizing the sheriff to proceed with enforcement. The court also dispensed with the need for the tenant’s approval of the formal order and declined to award costs, noting that the landlord had not submitted a bill of costs or proposed quantum.

Final outcome
The court concluded that the conditions for maintaining the stay had not been met and allowed the eviction process to resume. The ruling emphasizes the importance of compliance with interim court orders and the procedural consequences of failing to respond to motions within prescribed timelines. The landlord, Axes Investments Inc., was ultimately successful in its application to lift the stay.