Real Estate Law

The appellant developer earned municipal development credits and sold the land with an agreement that the purchaser would pay the appellant the credits once established.

The land was subsequently sold twice without this covenant, eventually to the respondent, who developed the property and received the credits.

The appellant sued the respondent for unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent was not enriched because it had paid a premium for the property in expectation of receiving the credits.

The landlord appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting rent rebates to three tenants of cottage sites.

The landlord argued that applying the security of tenure provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act would extend the 20-year leases beyond 21 years, thereby contravening the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act and rendering the leases void.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was bound by its previous decision in Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp., which held that the rent control provisions of the RTA applied to similar land leases.

The court declined to address the potential conflict between the RTA and the Planning Act as the landlord had not sought to overrule Matthews or requested a five-judge panel.

The appellants sought to operate a commercial paintball facility in an area zoned as a 'Private Park'.

The motion judge determined that the facility fell under the definition of a 'Place of Recreation' rather than a 'Public Park' or 'Private Park', and thus required a zoning by-law amendment as a new commercial use.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's sensible conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought to enforce a settlement agreement between a developer and a municipality regarding public access to a woodlot, relying on section 86 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no legal obligation for the developer to permit access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant should have first sought relief from the Ontario Municipal Board, which has the expertise to interpret the settlement agreement and its own orders, rather than applying directly to the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay $814,318.26 and deliver possession of a residential property to the respondent mortgagee.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding the principal amount he assumed and the respondent's allocation of his mortgage payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions that the appellant assumed the full mortgage amount and that his payments were insufficient to bring the mortgage into good standing.

The appellant condominium corporations sought a declaration that they owned a clubhouse within their development and that a mortgage granted by the respondent developer was void or subordinate to their interests.

The developer had retained legal title to the clubhouse, but the disclosure statements provided for its future conveyance to the appellants once the developer no longer owned any lands in the project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the disclosure statements did not constitute an executory contract of purchase and sale.

Consequently, the appellants did not have an equitable interest in the clubhouse capable of registration under the Land Titles Act, and the developer was entitled to mortgage the property.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering her to pay damages and costs for fraudulent misrepresentations made to obtain a mortgage loan.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in evaluating the evidence, rejecting her claim that she was an innocent dupe in a mortgage fraud scheme, and failing to assist her as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant had participated fully at trial without any failure of assistance by the judge.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their action as an impermissible collateral attack on a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge failed to address the appellants' request for an extension of time to appeal the Land Titles Decision.

The Court noted that one of the appellants had been acquitted of fraud in a related criminal trial, which contradicted the Deputy Director's findings, and that there were concerns about procedural fairness at the Land Titles hearing.

The action was reinstated to allow the appellants to bring a proper motion for an extension of time.

The appellant Town appealed a summary judgment order granted in favour of the respondent commercial tenant.

The Town had evicted the tenant for rent arrears and later sold a router left on the premises, applying the funds to charity.

The Town brought a motion for summary judgment arguing the limitation period had expired, but the motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the tenant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had the power to grant judgment for the non-moving party and correctly held the limitation period began when the tenant learned of the sale.

The appellant sold land to the City with an agreement that the City would build a road extension to the appellant's remaining lands along a specific route.

The City later discovered it could not build the road as agreed due to environmental assessment requirements for a rail spur, and admitted breach of contract.

The appellant sought a permanent injunction to compel the agreed route and prevent the rail spur.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding damages were an adequate remedy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the appellant failed to plead damages in the alternative.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal, an extension of time to appeal, and a stay of enforcement of a writ of possession arising from a mortgage default judgment and a Master's reference report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties had not pursued their right to oppose confirmation of the Master's report in the Superior Court, meaning there was no appeal properly before the Court of Appeal.

The court also declined to stay the writ of possession, noting the substantial admitted default and the lack of evidence regarding the moving parties' ability to pay.

The appellant appealed an order for possession.

On consent, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the condition that the order for possession not be enforced until July 1, 2014.

The respondents were awarded costs of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their fraud action based on a release, while the respondents' counterclaim on two promissory notes was sent to trial after a mini-trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to assess the advisability of a staged summary judgment process in the context of the litigation as a whole.

Because the release and the promissory notes were part of the same series of transactions, and credibility was a central issue, both the claim and counterclaim were required to proceed to trial to avoid inconsistent findings and substantive injustice.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granting specific performance of an easement agreement in favour of the respondent.

The parties had signed an 'Easement Summary' to provide road access to the respondent's water-access-only property, but the appellant later refused to finalize the formal easement, demanding additional consideration including a severed lot.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the Easement Summary was a binding preliminary agreement containing all essential terms, that there was no genuine issue for trial, and that specific performance was the appropriate remedy.

The appeal and the motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The respondent purchased a residential property from the appellant and later discovered it had previously been used as a marijuana grow-op and contained mould.

The respondent successfully obtained partial summary judgment on liability.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, finding that the motion judge's brief endorsement failed to provide any legal analysis or findings of fact regarding the existence of mould at the time of closing, thereby preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appellants purchased a commercial property that was later discovered to be contaminated.

They sued the vendor for failing to disclose the contamination and their real estate lawyer for negligence.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding that the purchaser actually knew about the contamination before waiving the environmental condition and closing the transaction, and had instructed the lawyer not to order further reports.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and findings of fact.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment on a mortgage and dismissing an application for relief under sections 22 and 23 of the Mortgages Act.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the summary judgment.

The Court also held that the application for statutory relief was overtaken by subsequent events, as the mortgage had matured and the mortgagee was in possession of the property.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed the application judge's interpretation of a clause in Schedule A of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the clause was not ambiguous and upheld the application judge's interpretation based on the wording and commercial reality of the transaction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal resolved the matter on consent, directing it to proceed as per the signed order, noting that no other agreements had been reached regarding the property.