Real Estate Law

The plaintiff staked unpatented mining claims on Crown land where the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) planned to build a realigned highway.

The plaintiff subsequently applied for aggregate permits, which were delayed and limited due to the highway construction.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming the MTO expropriated the property and sought compensation for the lost aggregate value.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that an unpatented mining claim is not 'land' under the Expropriations Act.

The court further held that even if it were land, the claims had no value because the plaintiff could not have obtained an aggregate permit for the entire property, and the property was not wrongfully downzoned.

The applicant sought the return of deposit monies paid for a condominium purchase after she defaulted on the closing and subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The vendor had agreed to return the deposit less $30,000 upon resale, but the applicant refused to sign the release.

The applicant failed to disclose the deposit claim to her Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The court held that the deposit monies, which had been paid into court, must be paid to the Trustee in Bankruptcy to be administered pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for the benefit of her creditors, with any surplus to be returned to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on their Toronto property and to strike the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff bank alleged that the defendants made unauthorized withdrawals of $295,000 from an uncancelled line of credit and used the funds to acquire the Toronto property, seeking an equitable mortgage and repayment.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the CPL as the defendants provided no contradictory evidence, and dismissed the motion to strike because the plaintiff's pleadings, if proven true, could support the relief sought.

Following a summary judgment finding the defendants liable for breaching a commercial lease, the court held a mini-trial to quantify damages.

The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence on the present value of unpaid rent, less mitigation from a new lease and the value of distrained chattels left by the tenant.

The court awarded the plaintiff $408,046 in damages, plus pre-judgment interest, and $49,046.05 in partial indemnity costs against the active defendants.

Following a reference to determine the amount owing under a second mortgage and the sale of the property, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The second mortgagee was awarded $20,000 in partial indemnity costs against the mortgagors and the third mortgagee, exhausting the remaining surplus funds.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs against the third mortgagee for unnecessarily causing the second mortgagee and a former counsel to prepare for a costs hearing on claims that were abandoned at the last minute.

The court declined to determine the validity of the third mortgage as no surplus funds remained.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application seeking an order to stop a unit owner from harassing its employees.

The respondent frequently sent abusive and insulting emails to the management office and verbally abused staff, calling them degrading names.

The court found that the respondent's conduct violated the Condominium Act's prohibition against activities likely to cause injury, including psychological harm, and constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The court ordered the respondent to cease and desist from her uncivil, harassing, and abusive conduct.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding a commercial lease dispute, the plaintiffs sought costs of $42,587.71 on a partial indemnity scale.

The landlord argued the costs were unreasonable based on the factors in Rule 57.01(1) and suggested a nominal award.

The court rejected the landlord's arguments, noting the plaintiffs achieved substantial success and the costs were not unnecessary or excessive.

The court fixed costs at $40,000 all inclusive.

Following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendant tenant, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The defendant had served a Rule 49 offer to settle and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer, and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The plaintiff landlord's costs submissions were found to be superficial and non-responsive.

The court awarded the defendant its claimed costs of $45,391.09, all inclusive.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs following a successful application for declaratory relief regarding a commercial lease renewal.

The applicant argued that the respondents' unconscionable conduct, which grounded a finding of proprietary estoppel, and a settlement offer justified an elevated costs scale.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted, as there was no litigation misconduct and the settlement offer was delivered too late for meaningful consideration.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale and fixed at $22,500.

The applicants brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's decision regarding a solicitor's account.

The respondent law firm had charged block fees for mortgage enforcement and power of sale proceedings without recording the time spent by lawyers and clerks.

The Assessment Officer reduced the account by approximately 21% due to the lack of recorded time.

The applicants argued for a further reduction, claiming the Assessment Officer failed to properly weigh the factors from Cohen v. Kealey & Blaney and should have applied a volume discount.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in principle in the Assessment Officer's decision and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance to purchase a property based on a right of first refusal agreement signed by her late husband and his brothers.

The defendant purchaser brought a cross-motion to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the agreement unambiguously granted the right of first refusal only to the 'parties' (the brothers), not to 'family members' like the plaintiff.

The court declined to admit parol evidence of intention and held that the doctrine of privity of contract precluded the plaintiff from enforcing the agreement.

The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiffs commenced an action in Small Claims Court for damages arising from a condominium purchase.

During trial, it became evident they intended to claim rescission, a remedy outside the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction.

The trial judge stayed the proceeding to allow them to seek a transfer.

The plaintiffs moved to transfer the action to the Superior Court of Justice and amend their claim.

The court granted the motion, finding it appropriate to allow the plaintiffs to pursue their claim in its full dimensions, despite procedural defects in their motion materials.

Costs were awarded to the defendant as the motion was necessitated by the plaintiffs' mistakes.

The plaintiff property owner sued the adjacent dry cleaning business and its principal for environmental contamination caused by the migration of dry cleaning solvents (PCE/TCE) onto his lands.

The court dismissed claims in trespass, strict liability, and negligence, but found the corporate defendant liable in private nuisance and under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The individual defendant was not found liable as he did not own or control the pollutant at the time of the spills and his subsequent inaction did not cause the plaintiff's damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff $1,632,500 for remediation costs and $201,726.71 for engineering expenses.

The self-represented appellant appeared before the court to set a date for a judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a building permit revocation and zoning non-compliance.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the technicality that it was commenced under the wrong court file number.

The court denied the request for dismissal, ordered the court office to assign a new file number, directed the production of a video recording of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, and clarified the remediation timetable from a previous order.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a declaration that her lease was renewed for a further five-year term, despite failing to provide written notice as required by the lease.

The tenant argued that the landlord's principals had orally assured her that the lease would be renewed without further action on her part, leading her to rely on these assurances to her detriment.

The court found that the elements of proprietary estoppel were met, as the landlord had encouraged the tenant's mistaken belief to take unconscionable advantage and regain possession of the premises.

The application was granted, and the lease was declared renewed.

The plaintiff requested authorization via teleconference to sign back an offer to purchase a disputed property.

The property was listed at $249,000 and an offer of $180,000 was received.

The plaintiff sought to counteroffer at $225,000 without disclosing the offeror's identity to the defendant, fearing interference.

The court authorized the plaintiff to sign back the offer at $225,000 or lower, provided that any resulting agreement of purchase and sale remains subject to court approval where the purchaser's identity must be disclosed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The plaintiffs, two sisters, sued their third sister and her family members over the transfer of a family farm property.

The plaintiffs alleged that the property was transferred for less than its true value and that the defendant sister breached her fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff Liliana brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after discovering a new $2,000,000 mortgage on the property and a pending agreement of purchase and sale for $6.9 million.

The court granted the CPL but ordered that it could be vacated upon payment of $1,500,000 into court if the pending sale closes, balancing the plaintiffs' claims with the defendants' right to complete the transaction.