Real Estate Law

Following a successful motion by the defendants to set aside a default judgment on an unpaid mortgage debt due to ineffective service, both parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The self-represented defendants sought $2,600, while the plaintiff sought $1,000.

The court considered the circumstances and determined that a fair and reasonable disposition was to make no order as to costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of a real estate purchase agreement.

The defendants failed to close the transaction to purchase the plaintiff's property for $310,000.

The plaintiff relisted the property and eventually sold it for $260,000.

The court found that the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate her damages and awarded $59,135.72, representing the $50,000 difference in purchase price plus carrying costs, legal fees for the aborted sale, and prejudgment interest.

The Municipality of Dysart and its Chief Building Official brought an application for a mandatory order requiring the respondents to demolish several structures built without building permits, and an injunction restraining the use of a logging museum for concerts without a change of use permit.

The respondents brought a counter-application seeking an order directing the issuance of a building permit for the museum addition and a declaration that permits were not required for other structures.

The court dismissed the respondents' counter-application, finding they failed to appeal the Chief Building Official's decision within the statutory timeframe and that the official correctly interpreted the Building Code regarding change of use.

The court granted the municipality's application, ordering the demolition of the unpermitted structures and issuing an injunction against holding concerts at the museum.

The applicant tenant brought an application under Rule 14 for a determination of rights under a commercial lease agreement.

The court held that the tenant was not entitled to a refund of a $24,000 ex gratia payment made to the landlord.

However, the court found the landlord had no grounds to take over management of the building and charge a 15% fee.

The court also determined that under the terms of the lease, the tenant was responsible for paying the depreciation of the HVAC units and the costs of installing roof drains, as these were operating costs and not inherent structural defects.

Claims regarding a breach of the duty of good faith were dismissed.

The plaintiff abandoned its motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) after the defendants served responding materials.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for the abandoned motion and brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The court awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs for the CPL motion, finding the plaintiff had an ulterior motive to thwart the sale of the property.

However, the court dismissed the defendants' motion for security for costs, finding that the plaintiff's $100,000 deposit currently held by the defendants constituted sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award, and that the action was not frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against a commercial tenant and its indemnifiers for damages arising from a breached lease.

The tenant failed to complete fixturing or pay rent, prompting the landlord to terminate the lease.

One indemnifier opposed the motion, arguing lack of consideration, defective notice, non est factum, and lack of independent legal advice.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issues requiring a trial, holding that the indemnifier received consideration and the landlord's notice of termination properly preserved its right to claim future damages.

Partial summary judgment was granted for arrears and future losses up to a specified date, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant real estate brokerage sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying motion argued that the plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claims regarding suspected mortgage frauds were statute-barred.

The motion judge had found a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiff reasonably discovered the claims against the listing agent.

The Superior Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and concluding that the discoverability issue required a trial.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to evict the respondent owner and his occupant due to years of disruptive behaviour, unauthorized modifications to common elements, and threats to staff and contractors.

Despite multiple previous court orders, including the removal of the occupant and findings of contempt, the respondents continued to breach the condominium rules and court orders.

Noting the respondent owner's mental illness and the severe impact on the condominium community, the court concluded that previous orders were insufficient and ordered the eviction of the respondent owner.

The plaintiff sought damages for the defendant's interference with a right-of-way over the defendant's property, which provided access to the plaintiff's parking lot.

The defendant constructed a hotel that reduced the width and height of the right-of-way, preventing front-end loader garbage collection and reducing parking capacity.

The court found the permanent structure constituted an actionable interference with the express grant of the easement.

The plaintiff was awarded $441,400 in damages for loss of rental income, reduction in property value, and costs to re-grade the parking lot.

Following a successful claim for possessory title, the claimant sought costs for two protracted appeal hearings.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $490,000, citing the claimant's multiple favorable Rule 49 offers to settle and the objector's unreasonable and vexatious conduct throughout the proceedings.

Two conflicting applications were brought in the name of a condominium corporation regarding a board of directors election.

The former board sought to set aside the election results based on alleged proxy tampering, while the newly elected board sought to uphold the results.

The court found that the meeting chair lacked the authority to decertify the election weeks after issuing his final report.

Furthermore, the applicants challenging the election failed to prove that improper proxy tampering occurred or materially affected the outcome.

The court upheld the election results and ordered strict identification and deposit requirements for proxies in future elections.

Following a power of sale by the first mortgagee, surplus funds were paid into court.

The second mortgagee and the Ministry of Finance both brought motions claiming priority to the surplus funds.

The Ministry claimed priority for unremitted retail sales tax collected by the mortgagors.

The court held that the deemed trust provisions under section 22 of the Retail Sales Tax Act gave the Ministry priority over all other security interests, including the registered second mortgage.

The Ministry was awarded its claim from the surplus funds, with the balance to the second mortgagee.

The applicant, acting as Attorney for Property and Estate Trustee, brought a motion for summary judgment to validate the deceased's 2010 will and 2008 revocation of prior wills, and an application for vacant possession of a property occupied by the respondents.

The respondents challenged the will and claimed an interest in the property based on alleged contributions and an unwritten agreement.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue for trial regarding testamentary capacity or undue influence, declaring the 2010 will and 2008 revocation valid.

The court granted vacant possession to the estate, noting the respondents failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds or provide corroborating evidence under the Evidence Act for an interest in land, but directed a reference to determine any unjust enrichment claim for improvements made to the property.

The landlord and tenant under a commercial lease both commenced applications regarding alleged defaults and rent calculations.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's application, arguing that the claims were barred by a prior settlement and mutual release executed in September 2013.

The court applied an objective approach to contractual interpretation and the doctrine of res judicata, finding that the release barred any claims existing prior to September 30, 2013.

However, the court held that the release did not bar the tenant's right to a rent reconciliation for the 2013 calendar year or ongoing rights under the lease.

The court ordered the remaining issues regarding square footage and rent quantum to proceed to trial as an action.

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant Sandy DiFlorio, brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation against a property owned by Sandy's son.

The plaintiffs alleged that a $300,000 mortgage advance from Sandy to his son was a fraudulent conveyance designed to defeat creditors.

The court applied the criteria under section 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act and found the plaintiffs had a reasonable claim to an interest in the land.

The motion for a certificate of pending litigation was granted.

A secondary motion to strike a statement of defence for unpaid costs was dismissed with leave to renew if costs remained unpaid.

The plaintiffs, tenants of a commercial property including a motel and restaurant/bar, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction requiring the landlord defendants to repair the premises, an abatement of rent, and relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached the lease by failing to provide the restaurant/bar in an operational state and failing to repair major structural systems.

The court found the plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm due to ongoing repair expenses and loss of income.

The court granted the injunction, ordered a 50% abatement of rent until repairs are completed, and granted relief from forfeiture, noting the plaintiffs' substantial investment in the property.

The plaintiff vendor sold a property to the defendant purchaser under an agreement that included a $550,000 bonus payable if the purchaser obtained a 'favourable decision' on its 'current application' for rezoning to permit a supermarket.

The purchaser appealed the town's refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) but ultimately settled for a zoning amendment that permitted retail use but not a supermarket.

The plaintiff sued for the bonus.

The court held that the bonus clause was triggered because the purchaser achieved the zoning it desired and urged upon the OMB, which constituted a 'favourable decision' on the appeal.

The applicant condominium corporations sought declarations of ownership, breach of trust, and oppression against the developer regarding a community clubhouse.

The developer had retained ownership of the clubhouse, subject to a mortgage, pending the sale of all remaining units and lands in the project, as set out in the disclosure statements.

The court dismissed the application, finding no trust relationship, no breach of the obligation to convey the clubhouse since the condition precedent had not been met, and no oppressive conduct by the developer in its management, mortgaging, or fee-charging for the clubhouse.