Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Henley Group Ltd. moved to quash Andrew Delic's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, or alternatively to lift the automatic stay of enforcement, or alternatively for security for costs.
   
• Justice Trimble found that the appeal raised no question of law, since Delic was challenging the Board's weighing of factors under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act rather than a legal error.
   
• Chronic non-payment of rent and repeated use of the automatic statutory stay led the court to characterize the appeal as an abuse of process.
   
• Delic's specific argument that he merely sought reasonable time and terms to pay arrears was rejected for three independent reasons, each of which the court held sufficient on its own.
   
• Partial compliance with a prior payment order did not save the appeal, though it factored into the court's decision not to separately lift the stay for non-payment.
   
• The court quashed the appeal outright, which automatically lifted the stay of enforcement of the eviction order.
   

Facts of the case

Andrew Delic rented a unit from Henley Group Ltd. In May 2023, Henley applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the tenancy for unpaid rent, and on June 5, 2023, the Board ordered Delic to pay the arrears on a set schedule. Delic stopped making payments in March 2024, prompting the Board to order termination of the tenancy by September 27, 2024 unless he paid arrears of $8,892.00. The parties later settled by consent order dated November 25, 2024, which set a new payment timetable for arrears of $11,794 and required ongoing monthly rent, with a term allowing Henley to seek eviction without further notice under section 78 of the RTA if Delic breached it.

After missing an extended payment deadline in December 2024, Delic appealed the consent order, triggering an automatic stay of the Board's eviction order. Justice Shore dismissed that appeal on March 26, 2025 as "manifestly devoid of merit" and later ordered Delic to pay Henley $8,500 in costs; those costs remain unpaid. Delic then brought two motions in the Court of Appeal — for leave to appeal and for a stay pending appeal — both of which were dismissed, with costs of $2,500 and $5,000 respectively ordered against him. Those costs orders were not entered until December 9, 2025 because Delic would not agree to their form, and both remain unpaid.

Henley applied again to the Board in January 2026 to terminate the tenancy for breach of the consent order. Following hearings in February and March 2026, the Board granted a Board-Initiated Review and issued a new eviction order on April 13, 2026, terminating the tenancy effective April 24, 2026 and ordering Delic to pay over $30,000 in rent arrears plus daily compensation. Delic appealed again, triggering a further automatic stay under section 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. On July 29, 2026, following a case management conference, Justice Trimble ordered Delic to pay monthly rent of $1,518 plus $8,000 per month toward arrears of $40,314.52. By the time of this motion, Delic still owed rent arrears the document states as approximately $23,765.51 [the source figure appears as "$23,765.51.47," which may contain a typographical error], along with $16,942.42 in unpaid costs from the prior appeal proceedings, inclusive of interest to September 11, 2026.

Henley brought this motion to quash the appeal as devoid of merit, or alternatively to lift the stay for non-payment, or alternatively for security for costs.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The court's authority to quash an appeal arises under section 134(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which permits quashing where an appeal raises no question of law, is manifestly devoid of merit, or amounts to an abuse of process. Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure separately allows dismissal of an appeal that is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, while Rule 63.01(5) permits an order lifting an automatic stay where an appeal is without merit. Section 210(1) of the RTA confines appeals from Board decisions to Divisional Court to questions of law. Section 83 of the RTA governs the Board's discretion to grant, deny, or delay eviction after considering all circumstances, and section 78 allows a landlord to seek eviction without further notice where a tenant breaches an order. Section 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act creates the automatic stay of a tribunal order that arises on appeal.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Trimble held that Delic's appeal did not raise a question of law. Citing prior Divisional Court authority, the court distinguished questions of pure law from questions of fact and mixed fact and law, and noted that challenges to the Board's weighing of evidence or exercise of discretion fall outside the court's jurisdiction on appeal. Delic argued the Board gave inadequate weight to his improved finances, health issues, and attachment to the rental unit, and unreasonably found no irreparable harm. The court found he was not alleging the Board considered the wrong factors, only disputing how it weighed them — a matter of discretion owed deference, not an appealable legal error.

The court also found the appeal to be an abuse of process. Drawing on prior case law, Justice Trimble characterized reliance on the automatic statutory stay to remain in the unit without paying rent, after the Board had already rejected relief from eviction, as "gaming the system." The court noted Delic's history of chronic default despite multiple opportunities to cure it, his unsuccessful appeals at both the Board and Divisional Court levels, and his continued occupation without full payment. The court rejected Delic's position that he merely sought reasonable time and terms to pay arrears, holding that this raised no legal question, that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene absent an error of law or procedural unfairness, and that the request itself evidenced the pattern of gaming the system given his repeated failure to meet terms previously granted to him. The court acknowledged Delic had complied, "barely," with the July 29, 2026 payment order, which informed its decision not to separately lift the stay for non-payment, though this was ultimately superseded by the automatic effect of quashing the appeal.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Trimble quashed Andrew Delic's appeal, which automatically lifted the stay of enforcement of the Board's eviction order. The alternative request to lift the stay specifically for non-payment under the July 29, 2026 order was dismissed. Delic was ordered to vacate the unit by 4:00 p.m. on September 30, 2026, failing which the Sheriff may proceed with eviction. The court found the outstanding rent arrears to be $24,314.52 as of the date of the decision [this figure differs from the approximately $23,765.51 referenced earlier in the same document, a discrepancy in the source that is not resolved within the text]. Henley Group Ltd., the successful party, was found entitled to its costs of the Appeal, with the specific amount to be determined following written submissions due from Henley by October 9, 2026 and from Delic by October 30, 2026 — no total costs figure for this motion was stated in the endorsement. The court additionally confirmed that Delic's previously ordered costs — $8,500 from the earlier Divisional Court appeal and $2,500 and $5,000 from the Court of Appeal motions — remain unpaid.