Real Estate Law

The applicant brought a motion for an order requiring the respondent to vacate her house.

The parties cohabited for about 12 months before separating.

The applicant had purchased the property from the respondent using her inheritance and was the sole registered owner.

The respondent refused to leave for 15 months post-separation, claiming an interest based on an alleged cohabitation agreement and unjust enrichment.

The court found no legal foundation for the respondent's continued possession and ordered him to vacate the property.

The applicant landlord brought an application regarding a commercial tenancy after the respondent tenants unilaterally withheld rent for 10 months.

The tenants claimed they were entitled to an abatement of rent because a failed Fire Code inspection delayed their ability to open a daycare facility on the premises.

The court found that while the landlord was responsible for some delay in rectifying the Fire Code violations, the tenants' withholding of 10 months' rent was an unduly aggressive self-help remedy.

The court granted a 4-month rent abatement, ordered the tenants to pay the remaining arrears within 45 days, and declined to order forfeiture of the lease.

The court also ordered the parties to cooperate on revising the design of a fence the tenants had installed without approval.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to invalidate a condominium lien, the respondent condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs of $23,905.99.

The court found that the conduct of the applicant's counsel was reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous, including making unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct and fraud, failing to respond to communications, and acting abusively.

The court awarded the respondent its full indemnity costs to sanction this conduct and bring finality to the litigation.

Following the plaintiff's successful motion regarding a commercial lease renewal, the court received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $34,339.46, arguing the defendant's conduct was unreasonable and high-handed.

The defendant argued each party should bear its own costs or that partial indemnity costs should be significantly reduced.

The court found the defendant's conduct was not so egregious as to warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant mortgagee brought an application for declarations that a commercial mortgage registered against the respondent's property was a closed mortgage with no prepayment privilege, that it was entitled to all lost interest to maturity upon any early prepayment, and that forced insurance coverage costs were recoverable.

The respondent corporate mortgagor argued it should be entitled to pay out the mortgage upon a sale without paying interest to maturity.

The court granted the declarations, finding that the mortgage terms clearly prohibited early prepayment and that corporate borrowers do not have a statutory right to redeem a mortgage with only a three-month interest penalty under the Mortgages Act.

The court also found the insurance costs were properly recoverable under the mortgage terms.

The applicants sought a declaration that they were permitted to install solar panels on their home's roof despite a restrictive covenant requiring the developer's approval for any 'structures'.

The developer had demanded the removal of the partially installed solar panels.

The court found that while solar panels do constitute a 'structure' under the covenant, the covenant itself was unenforceable for uncertainty.

The provision gave the developer unfettered discretion to approve or reject structures without setting out any objective criteria.

Consequently, the applicants did not require the developer's approval to proceed with the installation.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant purchaser failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendant's counsel of record requested an adjournment because the lawyer-client relationship had broken down, but the court refused, finding the request to be a delaying tactic.

As the defendant filed no responding materials, the court treated the matter akin to a default judgment and awarded the plaintiff $234,937.13 in damages, representing the difference in resale price and expenses less the forfeited deposit, plus costs.

The plaintiff municipality obtained a judgment against the defendant in a related tort action.

Shortly before the trial of that action, the defendant transferred his property to his mother for significantly less than market value.

The plaintiff brought an action to set aside the transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The defendants failed to file statements of defence and were noted in default.

The court applied the 'badges of fraud' doctrine and found the transfer was made with the intent to defeat creditors.

The court granted default judgment and set aside the property transfer.

The applicant father sought to rectify a Declaration of Trust concerning a 100-acre farm, arguing that he and his deceased son were mistakenly reversed as 'Trustee' and 'Beneficiary' by the drafting lawyer.

The respondent widow, acting as estate trustee, brought a cross-application to uphold a severance of the joint tenancy she executed under a power of attorney before the son's death.

The court applied the Fairmont Hotels test and found a mutual mistake, rectifying the Declaration of Trust to show the father as the beneficiary.

Consequently, the court set aside the severance of the joint tenancy and ordered the land registry rectified to show the father as the sole owner by right of survivorship.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for an interlocutory compliance order and restraining orders against a unit owner and its principals/agents.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a multi-year pattern of threatening, abusive, and harassing behaviour towards the board of directors, property management, and other unit owners, including threats of litigation and physical intimidation.

The court found that the defendants' conduct violated section 117 of the Condominium Act, constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and was oppressive under section 135 of the Condominium Act.

The court granted interlocutory orders restraining the defendants from further harassment and from soliciting proxies.

The applicant tenant sought to renew a commercial lease, but the parties could not agree on the market rate for basic rent.

The applicant brought an application requesting the court to fix the market rate and extend the lease, arguing the respondent breached its duty to negotiate in good faith.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the lease's renewal clause contained a specific failure provision that revoked the renewal option if mutual agreement was not reached.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel the landlord to accept an unagreed rent, and found no breach of the duty of good faith as both parties had negotiated genuinely but failed to agree.

The lease was extended by one month due to the respondent's delay tactics.

In a civil action concerning easements and rights of way over farm properties, the moving party (defendants) brought a motion seeking to prohibit the plaintiff from tendering updated real estate appraisal evidence, to strike a paragraph of an affidavit as hearsay, and to compel the production of accounting records.

The case management judge declined to prohibit the appraisal evidence as the plaintiff confirmed no further report would be delivered, and extended the deadline for responding evidence.

The judge also found it premature to strike the affidavit paragraph, leaving the hearsay issue for trial.

Finally, the judge ordered the plaintiff to produce its balance sheets for 2015-2020, deferring any further production requests.

The defendants brought a motion to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against a luxury property by the plaintiff, a construction project manager.

The plaintiff claimed damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking a constructive trust after allegedly financing the construction out-of-pocket.

The defendants argued the CPL should be vacated because the property had been sold, it was not unique, and damages were an adequate remedy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff had a reasonable claim for a constructive trust and that a monetary remedy would be illusory since the defendants had relocated to Hong Kong and appeared to have no other assets in Canada.

The parties brought motions under Rule 59.06(1) to amend a 2000 judgment regarding the removal of gates across a right-of-way.

The original judgment contained an error referring to a gate at the 'road' instead of the 'barn'.

The moving party sought a further amendment to clarify that a 'gate at the lake' was also excepted from removal, to reflect the original trial judge's manifest intention.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendment was necessary to accurately reflect the original decision and prevent further disputes.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment for rental arrears against the tenant, Nightingale HealtheNet Canada Corporation (NHCC), and its parent company, Nightingale Informatix Corporation (NIC).

The plaintiff argued that NIC was liable based on equitable assignment or part performance, as NIC had paid rent for NHCC for a period after NHCC became financially unviable.

The court granted summary judgment against NHCC but dismissed the claim against NIC, finding no written agreement, guarantee, or sufficient acts of part performance to bind the parent company to the lease obligations.

The court also declined to pierce the corporate veil.

The applicant brought an application to determine its fee under a Sales Representation Agreement after introducing the respondent to an investor for a real estate development project.

The respondent argued the transaction was a sale, which would make the fee clause unenforceable as the applicant was not a registered broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

The court found the transaction was in substance an investment, triggering the alternative fee clause.

The court awarded the applicant $1,800,000 and granted a charge on the property to secure payment.

The applicant brought a motion for the partition and sale of a property registered in the respondent's name, claiming a 50% beneficial interest pursuant to a Trust Agreement.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the property was her family home and the applicant had breached the agreement by failing to pay expenses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant sought equitable relief with unclean hands and that crucial facts regarding the validity and interpretation of the Trust Agreement required a full trial with viva voce evidence.

The plaintiff parents brought a motion for summary judgment against their defendant son for defaulting on a 1992 farm transfer agreement.

The son had agreed to purchase the family farm and related assets via promissory notes payable over 20 years, but ceased making payments in 2010.

The son raised defenses of contractual ambiguity, lack of understanding, and the expiry of the limitation period.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the contract unambiguous, noting the son had independent legal advice, and ruling that the limitation period for the delayed-demand promissory notes only began when the parents made a formal demand in 2013.

The plaintiffs were awarded $532,337.16.