Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellants Adam Neiman and Sarah Klimtschuck appealed an LTB eviction order, triggering an automatic stay that the respondent landlord sought to lift.
• The eviction was based on an N5 notice for substantial interference and willful or negligent damage, and an N8 notice for persistent late payment of rent.
• Over 150 cats were reportedly found in the unit, leaving it in a severely unsanitary condition with damages estimated between $50,000 and $63,000 for labour and materials alone.
• Grounds of appeal were held to be devoid of merit, as they lacked the specificity required to raise a valid question of law under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
• Continued non-payment of rent and the appellants' inability to perfect the appeal supported a finding that the appeal constituted an abuse of process.
• Courts may quash an appeal used solely to obtain the benefit of an automatic stay and delay enforcement of an eviction order.

Facts of the case

Adam Neiman and Sarah Klimtschuck (the appellants) were tenants of a residential unit owned by 15272122 Canada Inc. (the respondent landlord). The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) issued an eviction order dated January 9, 2026, based on two grounds: an N5 notice citing substantial interference and willful or negligent damage, and an N8 notice for persistent late payment of rent. The substantial interference claim arose from the presence of what was reported at the time to be over 150 cats inside the unit, which was found to be in a severely unsanitary condition with overwhelming odor and visible contamination. Other occupants complained of odors migrating into their units. Two witnesses provided evidence on behalf of the landlord that repairs would cost between $50,000 and $63,000 for labour and materials only, excluding architectural, engineering, or permit fees. The LTB ordered the appellants to pay damages of $50,000. The appellants also had significant rent arrears with both the previous owner and the respondent.

The appeal and grounds raised

Following the LTB's decision, the appellants filed a Notice of Appeal, citing that the LTB misapplied the law on landlord's entry, failed to consider relevant evidence, accepted unlawfully obtained evidence, and denied procedural fairness. The Divisional Court found these grounds to be vague and without substance. The court noted that alleging a failure to consider relevant evidence is not a valid ground of appeal without identifying what evidence was overlooked; similarly, claiming acceptance of unlawfully obtained evidence requires specifying what that evidence was, and a denial of procedural fairness requires identifying specific instances of unfairness. Aside from filing the Notice of Appeal and allegedly ordering the audio recording of the hearing, the appellants took no further steps to advance the appeal.

Applicable law and legal framework

Under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, an appeal to the Divisional Court lies only on a question of law. Section 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, grants the court discretion to quash an appeal that is manifestly devoid of merit, though the court noted, citing Schmidt v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 1995 CanLII 3502 (ON CA), that this power is to be exercised sparingly. The court also recognized that an appeal constitutes an abuse of process where it is commenced solely to obtain the benefit of an automatic stay of an eviction order, thereby delaying enforcement and avoiding ongoing rental obligations, as established in Hasan v. Taylor, 2017 ONSC 102.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court found that the Notice of Appeal raised no valid question of law and contained no substantive grounds that the respondent could meaningfully respond to. By the time of the hearing on April 28, 2026, the appellants had filed a joint affidavit revealing that 76 cats remained inside the unit, that they were working with animal welfare services — though no corroborating evidence was provided — and that they could not pay rent or afford to perfect the appeal. They provided no timeline for reducing the number of cats or resuming rental payments. The court concluded that the appeal was filed not to challenge a genuine legal error, but to buy time to address the cat situation the appellants themselves had created. The court further found that an order requiring compliance with a timetable would be futile, as the appellants stated plainly that they could not pay rent or proceed with the appeal.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice M. Labrosse quashed the appeal, lifted the automatic stay, and directed the local sheriff to enforce the LTB eviction order within 30 days of the May 11, 2026 decision. The respondent landlord, 15272122 Canada Inc., was the successful party. The court also dispensed with the appellants' approval as to the form and content of the order. On the question of costs, the court directed the respondent to provide written submissions within 30 days, with the appellants having a further 30 days to respond; no specific cost amount was determined at the time of the decision. The LTB's underlying award of $50,000 in damages against the appellants, for repairs to the unit, remained in place.