Real Estate Law

The moving party tenant sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent landlord from interfering with its use of a commercial truck yard.

The respondent had been using the property without paying rent and had locked the moving party out following a violent robbery.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the continuous interference with the tenant's property rights constituted irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property and granted the tenant exclusive possession.

The applicants, shareholders in Golden Ocean Investment Corporation, brought a motion challenging the validity of second and third mortgages registered against a property owned by the corporation.

They alleged the sole director executed the mortgages without authority as part of a fraud, and that the mortgagees were willfully blind to badges of fraud.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mortgagees were bona fide purchasers for value who conducted proper legal due diligence.

The court held that taking a financial or underwriting risk does not constitute willful blindness to fraud, and the mortgagees were entitled to rely on the director's actual and ostensible authority.

The parties brought competing motions under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to determine the validity of a Release signed by the mortgagor, which purported to waive her right to sue the mortgagees and her real estate agent.

The mortgagor had entered into a series of increasingly expensive private mortgages brokered by her real estate agent, who concealed that the lenders were his family members and their companies.

The court found that the real estate agent was the directing mind behind the loans and had breached his fiduciary duty.

The court held that the Release was void and unenforceable because its execution was an unconscionable transaction resulting from an inequality of bargaining power and an improvident bargain, characterized by exorbitant borrowing costs and illegal fees.

Following a ten-day trial regarding a commercial lease dispute, the court issued an endorsement to finalize the calculation of damages.

The court held that the landlord's claims for unpaid common area maintenance (CAM) charges from 2009 to 2011 were statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court declined to order equitable set-off for either party, finding the tenant solely responsible for its rent overpayments and the landlord guilty of misfeasance regarding CAM charges.

The court also rejected the landlord's 'Rent Paid Theory' for recalculating rent, awarding the tenant a total of $1,359,799.88 in damages.

The plaintiffs and defendants were part of a group of ten investors who purchased a property to improve and sell for profit.

Following the sale, a dispute arose over the distribution of the net proceeds.

The plaintiff claimed entitlement to three shares of the proceeds and compensation for lost rental income, while the defendants argued he was only entitled to one share, subject to a deduction for an unpaid promissory note.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to a single one-tenth share, from which his debt under the promissory note was deducted, resulting in an award of $8,237.82.

The claims for additional shares and lost rental income were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendant argued that the contract was frustrated and subject to force majeure because she could not transfer funds from Afghanistan due to the Taliban takeover, nor could she sell another property.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no force majeure clause in the agreement and that the doctrine of frustration did not apply because the lack of funds was not a supervening event that radically altered the contract.

The plaintiffs were awarded $280,739.28 in damages, representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs, and the deposit was ordered released to them.

The moving party, who became the sole owner of a condominium by right of survivorship following her former partner's death, brought a motion for vacant possession and occupation rent against the deceased's 85-year-old mother.

The mother argued she had a verbal agreement with the deceased to live in the condo rent-free for life.

The court found the mother's hearsay evidence regarding the deceased's promise to be unreliable and unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court granted the motion, ordering the mother to deliver vacant possession and pay occupation rent of $2,200 per month from the date the moving party ceased financially supporting her occupation.

The applicant developer brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce a purported settlement agreement regarding a land dispute that was blocking a subdivision development.

The applicant argued that the parties had agreed on the essential terms of a land sale in exchange for the withdrawal of the respondents' objection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was no mutual intention to be bound because several terms proposed by the respondents in a counteroffer, including the closing date, right of assignment, and registration of the agreement, were never accepted by the applicant.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to add a $50,000 claim for aggravated and punitive damages, alleging the defendants breached an oral agreement by commencing eviction applications at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing delay, limitation periods, lack of an independent actionable wrong, and that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LTB.

The court granted the motion, finding that the delay could be compensated by costs and a tight discovery timetable, and that the underlying factual determinations regarding the alleged oral agreement were within the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent mortgagee to pay outstanding property taxes and a declaration that a Notice of Sale was invalid.

The applicants had defaulted on a first mortgage, which the respondent then purchased to protect its second-priority cross-collateral mortgage.

The cross-collateral mortgage stipulated that upon default and buyout, an 8% interest rate and a 10% administrative fee would apply to the entire principal.

The applicants argued this violated section 8 of the Interest Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the 8% rate applied to the entire principal, not just arrears, and therefore did not constitute a prohibited penalty under section 8.

The Notice of Sale was declared valid and enforceable.

The plaintiff and a defendant mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment and distribution of sale proceeds paid into court following the sale of two properties by power of sale.

The court found that the defendant owners had engaged in fraudulent conduct, including registering sham mortgages and fraudulently discharging a valid mortgage, to defeat creditors.

The court granted summary judgment, reinstated the fraudulently discharged mortgage, and ordered the distribution of the sale proceeds to the valid mortgagees, including their legal costs on a complete indemnity basis.

The applicant property owner brought an urgent application to declare the respondent a trespasser and obtain an order for vacant possession.

The respondent claimed to have an oral lease agreement and refused to vacate, preventing the applicant from closing a pending sale of the property.

The court found no evidence of any lease agreement or payment of rent, concluding the respondent moved in without authorization.

The court held that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply, declared the respondent a trespasser, and ordered her to vacate the premises.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, brought an action against the defendant, the mother's separated spouse, regarding the ownership of an investment property.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant held his registered 33 percent interest in trust for the son, who allegedly contributed to the purchase and renovations.

The defendant relied on a marriage contract that stipulated ownership governed property division and counterclaimed for partition and sale, an accounting of rental income, and the return of personal belongings.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' trust claims, finding the marriage contract binding and the son's contributions unproven.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim for partition and sale, an accounting of rental income from 2017 onwards, and the return of his personal belongings.

The plaintiff entered into an unwritten real estate arrangement orchestrated by a third-party broker, whereby she obtained mortgage financing to purchase a property from power of sale proceedings, allowing the former owner to live there and potentially repurchase it after one year.

When the year expired, the former owner failed to secure financing to repurchase the property.

The court held that the plaintiff retains full title to the property and is entitled to vacant possession.

The court also found that the broker breached his duty of care by failing to document the arrangement or advise the parties to seek legal counsel, making him liable for the plaintiff's costs and for $20,000 to the former owner.

Furthermore, the court ordered the removal of a third mortgage fraudulently registered against the property by another defendant.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the return of a $300,000 deposit and delayed closing compensation following a failed pre-construction real estate transaction.

The purchaser argued the vendor breached the Tarion Addendum by improperly setting closing dates and failing to obtain an occupancy permit.

The court found that the vendor's notices complied with the Tarion Addendum and that the agreement placed the obligation to obtain the occupancy permit on the purchaser.

The court concluded that the purchaser failed to close the transaction and ordered the $300,000 deposit forfeited to the vendor.

The plaintiffs, a son and daughter-in-law, took over the operation of the defendants' family dairy farm based on an understanding that they would eventually acquire the farm and milk quota on favourable terms.

After six years of operating the dairy and making significant investments of time and money, the relationship broke down and the plaintiffs were forced to leave.

The plaintiffs sued for unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched by certain improvements to the property and that the elements of proprietary estoppel were met because the plaintiffs reasonably relied on the defendants' assurances to their detriment.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $405,000 in damages, while allowing $2,000 on the defendants' counterclaim for property damage.

The plaintiff, an elderly homeowner, brought a motion to continue a Mareva injunction against her contractor, hold the proceeds of the sale of her home in court, and set aside a default judgment obtained by a mortgagee.

She alleged that the defendants conspired to defraud her by charging exorbitant amounts for a home renovation funded by unconscionable high-interest mortgages.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud based on the significant discrepancy between the quoted cost and the amount paid for the renovations.

The court continued the Mareva injunction until the contractor posted $500,000 in security, ordered the sale proceeds to remain in court, and set aside the default judgment, allowing the plaintiff to defend the mortgage action on the merits.

The applicants sought a declaration that their late parents acquired possessory title to a parcel of land adjacent to their home through adverse possession.

The disputed property was originally part of a larger family lot, half of which the parents purchased in 1962.

The court found that while the parents had actual possession of the disputed land since the 1960s, they did not form the intention to exclude the legal owners until a family dispute arose in 1989.

From 1989 onwards, the parents openly claimed ownership and the legal owners failed to take action within the ten-year limitation period.

The court granted the application, finding possessory title was established before the land was converted to the Land Titles system in 1999.