Court to decide if woman and children can stay after husband, sole leaseholder, ended tenancy following domestic violence removal
Divisional Court will rule if Denise Browne and her two teens can remain in their Toronto home after the husband and sole leaseholder terminated the tenancy following his removal for domestic violence.
Copy link
By Torontoer Staff
A Divisional Court panel will decide whether a Toronto woman and her two teenage children can remain in their long-term rental after her husband, the only name on the lease, terminated the tenancy following his removal by police for domestic violence. The case raises questions about implied tenancies, tribunal review powers and what protections survivors of intimate partner violence have when only one partner is named on a lease.
Denise Browne has lived in the home for more than a decade. She handled maintenance requests, communicated regularly with the landlord Henley Crescent, paid rent from a joint account and continued to pay after her husband left. The landlord accepted only her husband’s written notice to end the tenancy, and Browne now faces an eviction order after multiple Landlord and Tenant Board reviews upheld the termination.
The legal issues before the court
The appeal turns on three linked questions: whether Browne is a tenant by implied agreement or merely an occupant; whether later board adjudicators had jurisdiction to review the first adjudicator’s discretionary finding that Browne was a tenant; and whether Divisional Court can hear appeals from the Landlord and Tenant Board that involve questions of fact as well as law.
Provincial law allows a landlord to reset the rent of a rent-controlled unit to market rate when a tenant vacates. Browne’s counsel told the court the landlord said she could stay only if her rent rose from $1,475 to $3,100, a fact used to show the practical consequences of classifying someone as a tenant or occupant.
Arguments from Browne’s legal team
Karen Andrews of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario argued the first adjudicator properly exercised discretion to consider all circumstances when concluding Browne was a tenant. Andrews said the Residential Tenancies Act gives the board a broad, protective definition of tenant and that the board should interpret that definition to prevent unlawful evictions.
Andrews noted Browne paid rent through a joint account and continued payments after her husband left. She also argued the husband misunderstood the notice he gave, believing it would end only his rental obligations, and that he vacated the unit before giving the notice, which undermines the validity of the termination.
It’s business.
Karen Andrews, Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario
Co-counsel Katherine Haist added that the board failed to consider other legal instruments and principles, including the Human Rights Code, the Family Law Act and the best interests of the child, arguments intended to show the board’s original tenant finding was legally sound and that later reviews should not have overturned it.
Landlord and tribunal counterarguments
Counsel for Henley Crescent, Kevin Lundy, told the court Browne was always an occupant who needed to take steps to create her own tenancy. Lundy pointed to the absence of a written or oral agreement naming Browne as a tenant and said paying rent for the household only sustained the husband’s tenancy.
The landlord does not care who pays the rent as long as it’s being paid.
Kevin Lundy, counsel for Henley Crescent
Lundy also argued the RTA’s definition of spouse does not transform an occupant into a tenant and that the husband’s mistake on the termination notice cannot create a tenancy. He told the court the landlord did not know the husband had been removed in 2023 for domestic violence and said the only practical relief would be more time to move for Browne.
A lawyer for the Landlord and Tenant Board, Anna Solomon, submitted Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to re-hear mixed questions of fact and law from the board. She described the tribunal as the master of its own house, deserving deference because of its expertise and role in delivering timely housing decisions.
The tribunal is the master of its own house.
Anna Solomon, counsel for the Landlord and Tenant Board
Wider implications for survivors and housing policy
Legal advocates and women’s groups say the case matters beyond one household. Kat Owens, legal director at the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, said intimate partner violence is a leading cause of homelessness for Canadian families and that the decision could affect many survivors who are not named on leases.
Intimate partner violence is one of the main causes of homelessness among Canadian families.
Kat Owens, Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund
Advocates say provincial policy changes could protect survivors regardless of whose name appears on a lease, for example by clarifying occupant protections, creating expedited supports for survivors who face eviction and ensuring tribunal processes consider family law and human rights contexts.
What happens next
Justice Harriet Sachs led a three-person panel at the hearing and said the court will issue its decision as quickly as possible. The ruling will clarify the scope of the board’s discretion, the limits of reviews within the Landlord and Tenant Board and the extent to which Divisional Court can intervene in tribunal decisions affecting tenancy status.
The outcome will determine whether Browne and her children can stay in their home at the existing rent or whether the landlord can treat the unit as vacated and set a new market rent. It will also set a precedent for other households where only one partner is named on a lease and domestic violence leads to separation.
A decision is expected in the coming weeks. Observers say the case could prompt legislative or regulatory responses if the court highlights gaps in protections for survivors who occupy rental units but are not listed on leases.
evictiontenantshousingdivisional courtdomestic violence
