Real Estate Law

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a residential property transferred by the defendant to his spouse.

The plaintiffs sought to recover on unsecured demand loans and alleged the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance.

The court applied the Grefford test and found a high probability of success on the debt claim, sufficient badges of fraud to raise a triable issue regarding intent to defeat creditors, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the CPL.

The motion was granted and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The tenant, a duty-free store operator at the Peace Bridge, brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that it was not required to pay base rent during the 18-month period its store was closed due to COVID-19 border restrictions.

The tenant argued the landlord breached a lease provision requiring consultation on regulatory changes and breached its duty of good faith by making unreasonable demands.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the landlord engaged in good faith negotiations and offered reasonable accommodations.

The court held it cannot rewrite the lease or impose a new rent structure where the parties failed to reach an agreement, as the lease lacked objective benchmarks for such an adjustment.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to collect funds advanced to the defendants pursuant to three promissory notes and a mortgage.

The defendants raised several defences, including that the interest rates offended the Criminal Code, lack of consent to the assignment of the debts, alleged payments made, extinguishment of the debt by power of sale, and an agreement not to enforce.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on any of the defences, noting the interest rates were below the criminal rate and the defendants had acknowledged the full amounts owing.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the principal amounts plus interest.

Following a default judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing HST, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The court clarified the application of HST to specific damage amounts and awarded pre-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 3% over prime for disposal and restoration costs, as these fell under the definition of 'Additional Rent' in the lease.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs of $31,385.41 on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the lease agreement.

The plaintiffs accepted the defendants' offer to purchase their residential property for $1,200,000, which required a $40,000 deposit upon acceptance.

The defendants failed to pay the deposit and advised they could not complete the purchase.

The plaintiffs accepted the repudiation and sold the property to another buyer for $1,130,000.

The plaintiffs sued for the $70,000 difference in purchase price.

The court held that the deposit was not a condition precedent to the contract, the defendants breached the agreement, and the plaintiffs reasonably mitigated their damages by selling to the other buyer without re-listing the property.

Judgment was awarded to the plaintiffs for $70,000.

The tenant unilaterally repudiated a commercial lease and vacated the premises.

The landlord refused to accept the repudiation, kept the lease alive, and sued for rent arrears without taking steps to mitigate by re-letting the premises.

The tenant argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's precedent in Highway Properties, which allows a landlord to insist on performance without mitigating, should be overturned in light of modern contract law principles.

The court held it was bound by vertical stare decisis to follow Highway Properties and the Ontario Court of Appeal's subsequent affirmations of the rule.

The court also rejected the tenant's argument that the lease capped damages at two years' rent, finding the cap only applied if the landlord terminated the lease.

Summary judgment was granted to the landlord for rent arrears.

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff municipality on her property.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's former husband, while employed by the municipality, defrauded it of approximately $23 million and used the stolen funds to extensively renovate the property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for a proprietary interest in the property through equitable tracing, and that the defendant failed to satisfy the factors required to discharge a CPL under section 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion to evict the respondent unit owner and force the sale of his unit, alleging he breached a prior Compliance Order and the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant relied on evidence from its security manager regarding the respondent's verbal altercations with staff and social media posts.

The court found the applicant's evidence to be largely inadmissible hearsay and highly prejudicial.

While the respondent's behaviour was rude and obnoxious, it did not constitute a breach of the Act or contempt of the Compliance Order.

The motion was dismissed without costs, subject to terms including the respondent's undertaking to vacate the unit until December 2025 and rent it out.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment after the defendant failed to close an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendant had agreed to purchase the property for $3,660,000 and paid a $100,000 deposit, but breached the agreement.

The plaintiff subsequently sold the property for $3,200,000 and sought damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The court granted default judgment, ordering the forfeiture of the deposit to be applied against the plaintiff's total damages, resulting in a net damages award of $405,346.47 plus costs.

The applicant brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking the sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing he was the sole beneficial owner under a resulting trust because he purchased the property with his inheritance.

The court found that while the resulting trust claim raised a genuine issue for trial, it was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act because more than ten years had passed since the parties separated.

The court ordered the sale of the property, finding it would not be oppressive as the property was at risk of foreclosure and the net proceeds would be held in trust with an initial advance to both parties.

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration agreement in a co-ownership agreement.

The respondents opposed, arguing the applicant was no longer a party to the agreement due to a prior corporate dissolution and purported divestiture of its interest, and that the claim was statute-barred or an abuse of process.

The court granted the application, applying the competence-competence principle to hold that the arbitrator should first rule on their own jurisdiction, as there was an arguable case that the applicant remained a party and the application itself was brought within the applicable limitation period.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich order against its former property manager and associated individuals and corporations.

The plaintiff discovered that the defendants had depleted its reserve account by over $900,000 through forged cheques and counterfeit bank statements.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation, granting the Mareva injunction.

The court also granted a Norwich order to compel disclosure from the banks involved to trace the misappropriated funds.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor following a default on a second mortgage.

The defendant admitted liability for the principal and interest but disputed liability for mortgage discharge fees.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the default.

However, the court declined to award the claimed discharge fees, as the plaintiff had not yet incurred them and there was no evidence they were a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the principal and missed interest payments, plus partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff private lender moved for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage renewal agreement after the defendant defaulted.

The defendant, a self-represented homeowner, argued the renewal was unconscionable.

The court found the renewal agreement unconscionable due to the plaintiff's exploitation of the defendant's financial desperation, failure to provide mandatory regulatory disclosures, and inclusion of illegal terms under the Interest Act.

The renewal was declared null and void, and damages were awarded based only on the original mortgage terms, excluding the plaintiff's claimed discharge fees.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant buyer repudiated a residential real estate agreement within hours of acceptance and failed to pay the $40,000 deposit.

The plaintiffs subsequently sold the property to another buyer for $12,473 less than the defendant's agreed price.

The court conducted a comprehensive review of the law on deposits and relief from forfeiture, concluding that the Stockloser test applies to real estate deposits.

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the full $40,000 deposit, as the defendant's breach was not accompanied by unconscionability that would justify relief from forfeiture, despite the deposit exceeding the actual damages.

The plaintiff mortgage syndicate brought a motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim regarding a defaulted second mortgage.

The defendants, who had not made any payments, alleged unparticularized fraudulent behaviour by the plaintiffs' agents.

The court struck the statement of defence and counterclaim as they disclosed no reasonable defence or cause of action.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded full indemnity costs.

Two brothers co-owned a family cottage and entered into a co-ownership agreement without legal advice.

When the plaintiff sought to sell his share, a dispute arose over the interpretation and validity of the buy-sell provision.

The plaintiff applied to enforce the provision or alternatively for a sale under the Partition Act, while the defendant applied for rectification of the agreement to match an earlier draft.

The Superior Court of Justice found the buy-sell provision void for uncertainty as it constituted an unenforceable agreement to agree.

The court dismissed the defendant's claim for rectification, finding no evidence of fraud or equivalent conduct.

Ultimately, the court ordered the sale of the property pursuant to the Partition Act and directed the net proceeds to be divided equally.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to correct a misnomer in its name, changing it from 'Urban Life Residential, In Trust' to 'Urban Life Residential Inc., In Trust', and to extend the time to file a trial record.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the action, security for costs, and to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend, finding it was a case of misnomer and the defendant was not misled.

The court dismissed the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the identity of the purchaser and the validity of the trust.

The requests for security for costs and discharging the CPL were also dismissed.