Real Estate Law

The plaintiff brought an urgent, ex parte motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a residential property.

The plaintiff alleged it had an agreement of purchase and sale after the sellers' real estate agent asked for an increased bid, which the plaintiff provided.

However, the sellers did not sign the plaintiff's offer and instead sold the property to another bidder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a triable claim to an interest in land because no binding contract was ever formed between the parties.

The court also rejected the argument that alleged tortious conduct by the real estate agents could ground a claim to an interest in the land.

The plaintiff sought costs following the dismissal of her motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction against the defendant condominium corporation.

The motion was dismissed based on the defendant's undertaking to provide alternative accommodation.

The court found that although the defendant was technically the successful party, the plaintiff was entitled to costs because it was reasonable for her to seek court intervention and the dismissal was on terms.

The court awarded the plaintiff $25,000 in costs.

The moving party sought the release of escrow funds following the sale of a distressed condominium project.

The dispute centered on whether the Minutes of Settlement required the property owner to pay property taxes that accrued prior to closing.

The court applied principles of commercial contractual interpretation and found that the plain language of the agreement only required the owner to continue paying operating expenses it was already paying at the time of execution.

Since property taxes had been deferred for months prior to the agreement, the owner was not obligated to pay them.

The court ordered the disputed funds released to the moving party.

The plaintiffs, including a condominium corporation and its directors, brought a motion for an interim injunction to restrain a unit owner from publishing allegedly defamatory Facebook posts accusing them of financial mismanagement and theft.

The plaintiffs also sought to amend their claim to add another plaintiff.

The court dismissed the injunction motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction in defamation cases, as they could not show the statements were impossible to justify given the evidence of financial discrepancies.

The motion to amend the claim was granted as unopposed.

Following a successful application to enforce an arbitral award requiring a unit owner to replace defective Kitec pipes, the condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs.

The court rejected the argument that the condominium's governing documents automatically entitled it to full indemnity costs, finding that the court retains jurisdiction to determine appropriate costs.

However, the court awarded full indemnity costs of $71,120.97 based on the unit owner's unreasonable refusal to cooperate and his abusive litigation conduct, which included making unfounded allegations and repeatedly ignoring court orders and procedures.

The defendants brought a motion to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a commercial property after the plaintiffs refused to close the transaction.

The plaintiffs argued the agreement was part of a larger five-property deal and that the defendants acted in bad faith by only waiving conditions on one property while restructuring the vendor take-back mortgage.

The court found that while the plaintiffs raised valid concerns about the defendants' conduct, the defendants had a triable claim to an interest in land and had invested substantially in development plans.

The court granted the CPL on the condition that the defendants' principal provide a personal indemnity undertaking.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion seeking the release of over $1.1 million held in trust by its counsel.

The funds had been paid into trust pursuant to a consent order to replace a vendor take-back mortgage on the subject property, pending a final determination of the amount owing to the defendant vendor.

The plaintiff argued that the funds should be released because the agreed-upon timetable for resolving the dispute had passed, the trust arrangement amounted to execution before judgment, and the plaintiff had sufficient assets to satisfy any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order did not provide for the release of the security if the timetable was not met, that holding agreed-upon security is not execution before judgment, and that the court has no jurisdiction to deprive a secured creditor of its security simply because the debtor has other assets.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant had agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' property but failed to obtain financing after a market correction.

The defendant communicated his inability to close prior to the closing date and failed to participate in closing preparations.

The court found that the defendant anticipatorily breached the agreement, relieving the plaintiffs of the obligation to tender perfectly.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to access the defendants' adjacent property to complete brickwork on a new residential home before winter.

The parties were involved in a broader dispute over property lines and construction damage.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the structure was left exposed to winter weather, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The motion was granted, permitting temporary access subject to proof of insurance.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' 2019 statement of claim, arguing it was based on information obtained during discovery in a related 2018 action.

The court found that the plaintiffs breached the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by using discovery evidence to launch a new proceeding rather than seeking to amend the existing claim.

The motion to strike was granted, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to remove references to protected information.

The plaintiff developer and the municipality sought a permanent injunction against protesters occupying a residential development site and blocking public roads.

The court found the leader of the protesters in contempt for refusing to obey interlocutory injunctions and struck his pleadings, denying him further participation.

The court granted the permanent injunctions, finding the developer had good title, the protesters' self-help remedies and blockades were unlawful, and there was a serious risk of ongoing harm and violence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, alleging the defendants failed to satisfactorily complete earth works and grading on their property as required by the minutes of settlement.

The parties relied on conflicting unsworn engineering reports regarding the adequacy of a buffer zone, berms, and general conformance with the grading plan.

The court found it could not resolve the factual disputes on the written record alone.

The court withheld its final order for 45 days to allow the parties to make submissions on holding a mini-trial or ordering the experts to meet and confer under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The sellers brought a motion for summary judgment after the buyer failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The buyer argued she was entitled to terminate the agreement because the lot dimensions were materially misstated and the sellers failed to provide a survey.

The court found that the minor discrepancy in lot size due to a curved street was not a material misrepresentation and that a digital copy of the survey had been provided.

The court granted summary judgment to the sellers, awarding damages for the difference in the resale price and associated mortgage penalties.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's urgent application, which amounted to an unjustified attempt to obtain a Mareva injunction, the respondents sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, failure to attend cross-examination, and refusal to pay undisputed mortgage arrears warranted an elevated costs award.

Balancing the indemnity principle with access to justice, the court awarded costs to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $20,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.

The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.

The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an urgent case conference to schedule an injunction application to prohibit a requisitioned unitholders' meeting.

The applicant argued the requisition did not comply with the Condominium Act, 1998.

Over 70 unitholders participated in the case conference, raising concerns about management and short-term rentals.

The court scheduled the injunction hearing and set a timetable for the delivery of materials, urging the parties to communicate and resolve their issues amicably.

The applicant sought to set aside a Notice of Violation issued by the City requiring the removal of a rooftop billboard sign.

The applicant argued the sign was a legal non-conforming use because a permit had been issued in 1959.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the original sign was replaced between 1978 and 1983 without a permit, and further substantial alterations were made in 2013 without a permit.

As the sign was never lawfully erected under the applicable by-laws, it did not qualify as a legal non-conforming use, and the City was not estopped from enforcing its sign by-law.

The plaintiff landlord terminated a commercial lease after a dispute over plumbing alterations for a hand-sink.

The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment for damages, and the defendant tenants cross-moved for summary judgment on their counterclaim for improper termination.

The court found that the tenant was taking reasonable steps to cure the alleged default within the notice period, making the landlord's termination premature and unjustified.

The landlord's action was dismissed, and the tenants were granted summary judgment on liability, with the assessment of damages referred to trial.