Real Estate Law

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction to remove protesters, including the named defendant Skyler Williams, from its property where it was constructing a residential subdivision.

The defendant argued that the common law test for injunctions was unconstitutional and disproportionately impacted Indigenous persons, and that the Crown had a duty to consult.

The court found that the defendant was not an authorized representative asserting collective s. 35 rights, and that the common law test for injunctions adequately balances Charter values.

Finding that the plaintiff held legal title and that damages would be inadequate for the ongoing trespass, the court granted the permanent injunction.

The defendants (chargor and guarantor) brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff mortgagees illegally took possession of the mortgaged property and seeking a review of the fees charged to redeem the mortgage.

The court found that the plaintiffs legally and peaceably took possession of the unoccupied property after default, and complied with the notice provisions of the Mortgages Act.

However, the court disallowed $11,700 in repeated administrative and nonpayment fees charged by the plaintiffs, finding them to be an unenforceable penalty contrary to section 8 of the Interest Act, and ordered reimbursement to the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over a property acquired by a partnership for development.

The parties disagreed on the partnership agreement's interpretation after a zoning application was refused.

The court found a triable issue regarding an interest in land but declined to exercise its discretion to grant the CPL, noting the property was not unique, was acquired for investment, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff sued her mortgagee, its realtors, the purchasers, and the mortgagee's lawyer, alleging an improvident sale of her property under a power of sale.

The defendant lawyer moved to strike the claim against him under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the elements of unlawful act conspiracy, specifically failing to plead an unlawful act or that the lawyer's conduct was directed at her rather than simply advancing his client's interests.

The claim against the lawyer was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant mortgagee sought possession of a residential property after the respondent mortgagor defaulted on his loans.

Unbeknownst to the mortgagee, the mortgagor had fraudulently leased the property to innocent tenants who paid $30,000 in advance rent.

The court balanced the equities between the innocent mortgagee and the innocent tenants under section 52 of the Mortgages Act.

Finding the tenants to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice, the court ordered that the tenants could remain in possession until the end of their lease, after which the mortgagee would obtain full possession.

The City of Markham brought an application for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction against a homeowner who removed trees and built a concrete hockey rink in the backyard of his heritage-designated property without City approval.

The homeowner argued the Heritage Easement Agreement only applied to the building, not the grounds, and that the City's enforcement was unconscionable and violated his Charter rights.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the agreement applied to the entire property and granted the City sole discretion to determine breaches and conduct remedial work.

The court dismissed the unconscionability and Charter arguments, issued the requested declarations, and granted a permanent injunction prohibiting further unauthorized work.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant failed to close on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant had struck out the financing condition but was ultimately unable to obtain a mortgage.

The plaintiff re-listed and sold the property for a lower price.

The court found the defendant in breach of the agreement and awarded the plaintiff damages for the difference in purchase price and carrying costs, less the deposit already paid.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendants admitted to breaching the agreement of purchase and sale but argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages when he resold the property for a lower price in a falling market.

The court heard expert appraisal evidence from both parties.

The court found the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff acted unreasonably in mitigating his damages, noting the property was sold on the open market after reasonable exposure.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $111,702.58, representing the difference in sale prices plus carrying costs, less the deposit.

The applicant builder sought an interim injunction to prohibit the respondent statutory warranty corporation from conciliating delayed occupancy claims made by condominium purchasers.

The builder argued that the delays were caused by a municipal water supply issue and the COVID-19 pandemic, constituting an 'Unavoidable Delay', and that adverse conciliation decisions would irreparably harm its reputation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of irreparable harm and concluding that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the statutory body to carry out its mandate to protect new home buyers.

The plaintiffs, unpaid contractors on a home building project, brought a motion in two related actions for four orders: to transfer one action from Toronto to Newmarket, to amend their statements of claim to add defendants and allege fraudulent conveyances, to register certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) on the impugned properties, and for summary judgment against the corporate builder.

The court granted the venue transfer and summary judgment on consent.

The court also granted leave to amend the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

However, the court dismissed the motion for CPLs, concluding that the plaintiffs' evidence regarding the fair market value of the properties was methodologically flawed and failed to establish a prima facie case of intent to defeat creditors.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a collateral mortgage, a share purchase agreement, and a promissory note after the defendants defaulted on payments.

The defendants argued they were entitled to a hold-back or set-off due to alleged financial misconduct by the plaintiff and claims by third-party investors.

The court found no evidence of misconduct and no contractual or legal basis for a set-off.

Summary judgment was granted, with the court applying section 4 of the Interest Act to limit the interest rate on the agreement and note to 5% annually, while enforcing the 1% monthly compound interest on the mortgage.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for breach of contract regarding an aborted real estate transaction, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's bill of costs and awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $6,128.59, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The applicant commenced an action for a constructive trust over a property owned by his deceased common-law spouse.

The respondent estate brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing it was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to add the estate beneficiaries as parties.

The court dismissed the estate's motion, finding that a claim for a constructive trust over real property is governed by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the Trustee Act.

The court also dismissed the applicant's motion to add the beneficiaries, finding it unnecessary at this stage.

The plaintiff and defendant both moved for summary judgment regarding an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought damages for anticipatory breach, while the defendant counterclaimed.

The court found that the evidence on damages was inadequate and that determining liability alone via partial summary judgment would be inefficient and risk inconsistent findings.

Both motions for summary judgment were dismissed, and the matter was directed to trial.

The applicants purchased property subject to a 99-year lease held by the respondent flying club.

Seven years later, the applicants sought to declare the lease void for contravening the Planning Act, arguing it was executed after an amendment that repealed an exemption for long-term leases.

The respondent argued the lease was saved by the doctrine of part performance prior to the amendment.

The court applied the four-part test for part performance and found that the respondent's actions, including surveying the property, making improvements, and paying rent, constituted part performance prior to the amendment.

The application was dismissed.

Following a successful motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent a commercial landlord from breaching a lease, the applicant sought costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity fees of $7,491.90, noting the applicant bore a heavier burden as the moving party.

However, the court significantly reduced the claimed disbursements for an expert witness retainer, finding the $11,611.80 claimed was unreasonable for the motion stage.

Total costs were fixed at $11,253.66.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant for damages after the tenant repudiated a commercial lease with eight years remaining.

The repudiation forced the plaintiff to sell the property, as it could not afford the carrying costs without the rental income and re-letting was unfeasible.

The defendants admitted liability but argued the plaintiff suffered no damages because the property was sold at fair market value.

The court rejected this argument, finding the forced sale was not at fair market value and did not compensate the plaintiff for the lost income stream and capital appreciation.

The court accepted the plaintiff's discounted cash flow analysis to quantify damages, using the 2015 appraised fair market value to account for foreseeable lost capital appreciation, and assuming reasonable mitigation through a hypothetical investment in a REIT basket.

The plaintiffs and defendants brought competing motions in an underlying real estate dispute regarding mould.

The plaintiffs sought to strike the defendants' statement of defence, arguing the defendants breached a prior order requiring them to seek leave before bringing further motions.

The defendants moved to set aside a notice of garnishment, which the court treated as a request to stay enforcement pending various applications for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding the prior order did not apply to motions for leave to appeal.

The court also dismissed the defendants' motion, finding they failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm to justify a stay of enforcement.

The Court of Appeal remitted the issue of whether a condominium corporation (MTCC 1056) was entitled to be indemnified by its property manager (Brookfield) for costs arising from a negligent estoppel certificate.

The property manager had been found negligent in preparing the certificate, making the condominium corporation vicariously liable to the plaintiff.

The court held that an implied right of indemnity exists at common law for a principal found vicariously liable for its agent's negligence.

Brookfield was ordered to indemnify MTCC 1056 for the costs paid to the plaintiff and the costs of the trial and appeal.