Real Estate Law

The moving party, a creditor of the bankrupt, obtained a section 38 order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to pursue the partition and sale of a property co-owned by the bankrupt and the respondents.

Following the sale, the parties disputed the distribution of the net proceeds held in trust.

The court determined that the moving party was entitled to its costs for the section 38 application and a one-third share of the proceeds.

The court also ordered the respondents to account for funds they improperly drew from a secured line of credit after the partition and sale order was granted.

The respondents' claims for allowances related to mortgage payments and previous line of credit withdrawals by the bankrupt were dismissed.

The applicants sought a declaration of ownership over a portion of the respondent's neighbouring property by way of adverse possession.

The respondent brought a cross-application for a declaration of trespass and an order to remove a fence built by the applicants on the disputed lands.

The court dismissed the adverse possession claim, finding that the applicants' predecessors in title did not have continuous, peaceful, or exclusive possession for the requisite 10-year period prior to the lands being converted to the Land Titles system in 1996.

Consequently, the court granted the respondent's application, declaring the fence a continuing trespass and issuing a mandatory injunction for its removal.

The applicant condominium corporation requested to schedule a short application for an oppression remedy because a unit owner refused to move a vehicle to allow for maintenance.

The court declined to schedule the hearing, noting that condominium compliance disputes must generally proceed to mediation and arbitration before court.

The court convened a case conference to determine whether the matter was properly before the court or should be diverted to alternative dispute resolution.

The plaintiff sought costs of $15,975 following a successful summary judgment motion regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs up to the date of a Rule 49 offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, citing the defendant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

The defendant argued for reduced costs due to limited means and alleged partial success.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full $15,975 claimed, finding the Rule 49 offer valid and the defendant's conduct in raising unproven fraud allegations justified an enhanced costs award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment in an action arising from a failed $7.25 million commercial real estate transaction.

The defendants failed to close due to lack of financing but argued the agreement was invalid and the seller's closing documents were deficient.

The court found the matter appropriate for summary judgment on liability but declined to grant partial summary judgment for the deposit, as the defendants' request for relief from forfeiture was intertwined with the overall damages claim.

The court granted summary judgment on liability in favour of the corporate plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the valid agreement.

The individual plaintiffs' claims were dismissed for lack of standing as they were not parties to the contract.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel their neighbours to relocate a heat pump, alleging the noise and vibration constituted a nuisance and caused health issues.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test for mandatory injunctions.

The motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, largely due to insufficient medical and expert evidence linking the heat pump to their complaints, and failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

Following a successful application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners for noise, harassment, and by-law breaches, the applicant condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the applicant its full costs of $17,645.67 pursuant to section 134(5) of the Condominium Act and the corporation's declaration, finding that innocent unit owners should not bear the expense of enforcing compliance.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over a Toronto condominium legally owned by his ex-fiancée, the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership based on an oral agreement and wire transfers he alleged were for the property's purchase.

The court found the plaintiff established a triable issue for a constructive trust.

However, the court dismissed the motion, concluding that the equities favoured the defendant because the property was an investment, not unique to the plaintiff, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiffs (purchasers) and defendants (vendors) entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a condominium.

Prior to closing, the vendor's agent caused extensive water damage to the property while replacing plumbing.

The purchasers refused to close without a substantial holdback to assess and repair the unknown extent of the damage, which the vendor rejected.

Both parties brought motions for summary judgment.

The court found that the water damage was substantial, the purchasers acted reasonably and in good faith, and the vendor failed to act in good faith by initially refusing an independent inspection.

The purchasers' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, the agreement was validly terminated, the deposit was ordered returned, and damages for additional living expenses were awarded.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation against a property in Jackson's Point.

The parties were former business partners who had entered into a loan agreement that permitted the registration of security against the property in the event of default.

The court found that the plaintiff had a triable claim to an equitable mortgage and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the relief.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff intends to bring a motion to order the sale of the subject property.

The defendants do not necessarily object to the sale, but there is no agreement on the terms.

The court established a timetable for the motion materials and scheduled a case conference to explore resolving the contested issues before the motion hearing.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application under s. 109 of the Condominium Act to amend its declaration regarding the maintenance and replacement of exterior windows.

The applicant argued that the declaration was inconsistent because it made unit owners responsible for maintaining windows, while also making the corporation responsible for common elements, which included the exterior windows.

The respondent unit owners opposed the amendment, arguing there was no inconsistency.

The court found an inconsistency existed and that it was unworkable to have individual unit owners replace their own exterior windows.

The court granted the application to amend the declaration and adjourned the respondents' cross-application regarding the procedure for replacing the windows.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding two properties, alleging they were part of a real estate partnership with his father.

The court found there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land but declined to grant the CPL based on equitable factors.

The court concluded that damages would be a satisfactory remedy and that a CPL should not be used to secure a claim for damages.

The motion was dismissed and the interim CPL was discharged.

The plaintiffs sued a father and son after the son breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The son forfeited his deposit, and the plaintiffs sought further damages from the father, alleging the son acted as his agent or that the father induced the breach.

The father moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action against him.

The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of an agency relationship or that the father intended to induce a breach of contract.

The court held that partial summary judgment was appropriate to remove the father from the action, leaving only the quantification of damages against the son.

The parties are neighbours involved in a dispute over rights of way.

The respondents brought a motion under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay the applications pending arbitration, relying on an agreement that disputes over maintenance expenses or the nature of use of the rights of way shall be arbitrated.

The court found that the core dispute was about the existence of the rights of way, not their maintenance or nature of use.

The motion to stay was dismissed, except for one alternative claim regarding minimum use guidelines.

The applicants, acting as attorneys for property for their mother, brought a summary judgment motion to compel their sister, the respondent, to vacate the mother's home.

The mother required the proceeds from the sale of the home to fund her long-term care.

The respondent, who lived in the home without paying rent or full expenses, refused to leave and sought an adjournment.

The court denied the adjournment and granted the summary judgment motion, ordering the respondent to vacate the home within 60 days, as the mother's financial needs took priority.

The plaintiff purchased a commercial building from the defendant.

Prior to closing, the defendant provided a statutory declaration claiming uninterrupted use of an adjacent driveway without ever seeking permission.

The plaintiff subsequently sued the adjacent owner for a prescriptive easement but lost after discovering the defendant had previously sought permission via an unsigned 1987 agreement.

The plaintiff then sued the defendant for negligent misrepresentation to recover its legal costs from the unsuccessful easement action.

The Superior Court dismissed the action, finding that while the declaration contained false statements and the defendant owed a duty of care, the plaintiff did not detrimentally rely on the misrepresentations because it would have continued the easement litigation based on its counsel's advice regardless of the 1987 agreement.

The plaintiffs and the principals of the defendant corporation were friends who entered into an oral agreement regarding a condominium unit to be used as a team house for a snowboarding program.

The plaintiffs alleged they had an option to purchase the unit, while the defendants claimed the plaintiffs failed to make required monthly payments and terminated the agreement.

The court found that an oral agreement existed, the doctrine of part performance applied to overcome the Statute of Frauds, and the defendants wrongfully terminated the agreement.

The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs based on the market value of the property less the amounts owed to the defendants, declining to order specific performance.