Real Estate Law

The applicant sought a declaration that she owned a narrow strip of land (approximately 7 feet by 41 feet) located behind the respondents' garage through adverse possession.

The applicant claimed to have adversely possessed the strip between 1998 and 2008, prior to the conversion of the property to Ontario's land titles system.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish the requisite elements of adverse possession, including actual possession, intent to exclude the true owners, and effective exclusion.

The court dismissed the application and granted the respondents' cross-application for an order requiring the applicant to remove her trailer and detritus from the strip and cease trespassing.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor for alleged mortgage default.

The defendant disputed the renewal fee amount, claiming the parties had agreed to reduce it from 6% to 4% and that she had paid the reduced amount in cash.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence as uncorroborated and lacking credibility.

The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the timing of the Statement of Claim relative to the Notice of Sale under the Mortgages Act, and rejected the defendant's argument that the Farm Debt Mediation Act applied.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiff regarding a default judgment arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought to enforce the default judgment through garnishment and sheriff's sale.

The court found that a binding settlement agreement existed on essential terms, that the defendants had not breached or resiled from the agreement, and that the timing of collateral mortgage registration was not an essential term.

The court granted the motion to enforce the settlement, cancelled the scheduled property sale, and ordered specific performance of the settlement terms with deadlines for mortgage registration and final payment.

The defendants moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that had been granted ex parte against two properties.

The defendants raised two grounds: (1) failure to make full and frank disclosure as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) that the court should exercise its discretion to discharge the CPL on the basis that the plaintiff had no reasonable claim to an interest in land and that damages was an adequate alternative remedy.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts including ongoing negotiations regarding the terms of the agreement of purchase and sale and draft agreements that differed from the initial term sheet.

The court also applied the Dhunna factors and found that the property was not unique, damages would be an adequate remedy, and there were other willing purchasers.

The CPL was discharged.

A residential condominium developer sought a declaration that communications from the Chief Building Official regarding parking requirements constituted appealable orders or decisions under the Building Code Act.

The developer argued that emails threatening permit revocation if occupancy permits were requested without adequate parking prevented it from applying for occupancy.

The court found that the emails were pre-emptive communications indicating the CBO's future intentions, not final decisions on actual occupancy permit applications.

As no formal decision refusing occupancy had been made, the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene.

However, the court maintained a temporary parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per unit pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on the developer's parking variance appeal.

The court considered competing claims to an investment property in Toronto, where the applicant sought partition and sale and the respondent claimed the applicant held her 50% interest in trust for him.

The court found the respondent’s trust claim statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, as he had notice of the applicant’s beneficial ownership since at least 1995.

The court also found that, even if not statute-barred, the trust claim would fail on the merits because the applicant made no financial contribution to the purchase or mortgage.

The court granted partition and sale, an accounting, and division of net income since September 20, 2021.

The applicant, Parvez Peerpasha Huseni Inamdar, sought to rescind an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a vacant property after discovering a restrictive covenant limiting development to a single detached house.

The court found that the covenant was a registered restrictive covenant excepted by the agreement, and that the applicant, a sophisticated purchaser, had removed due diligence conditions and assumed the risk.

The application for rescission was dismissed.

The court approved a proposed settlement and certified the action for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class consists of approximately 100 investors in a failed real estate limited partnership project.

The settlement restores the class members’ proportionate interest in the property, now with greater development density and less debt, and is considered generous.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved class counsel’s fees.

The action will continue only as between the defendants for unresolved crossclaims.

The court approved a class action settlement regarding balcony guardrail failures at the Matrix Towers in Toronto, which led to residents being deprived of balcony access for up to 3.5 years.

The settlement provides a lump sum per unit, regardless of unit size, and includes approval of class counsel fees and disbursements but denies honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The decision reviews the risks of litigation, the fairness of the settlement, comparator cases, and the legal standards for settlement approval, counsel fees, and honoraria.

The Bank of Montreal sought a declaration that its mortgage on a property in Oshawa was entitled to first priority over a competing mortgage registered by 10655252 Canada Corporation, relying on the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

The court found that BMO’s funds were used to pay out the prior first mortgage (CIBC), and that all parties intended BMO to have first priority.

Due to the solicitor’s negligence, the BMO mortgage was not registered first, but the court exercised its discretion to grant equitable subrogation, giving BMO first priority to the extent of the CIBC mortgage.

The applicants sought the return of their $80,000 deposit after a failed real estate transaction in which the respondent could not provide clear title.

The deposit was returned before the hearing.

The respondent agreed to pay pre-judgment interest and costs but requested several years to pay and sought to join her former lawyer as a third party, alleging the lawyer was responsible for the failed transaction.

The court dismissed the motion to join the lawyer, finding it unrelated to the application, and ordered the respondent to pay the costs and interest within 60 days.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for an adjournment and granted the application for partition and sale of jointly owned property.

The decision details a lengthy procedural history, including multiple adjournments and missed deadlines by the respondent, and clarifies the legal principles governing adjournments and the entitlement to partition and sale under Ontario law.

The court found no evidence to justify further delay and ordered the sale of the property, with proceeds to be held in trust pending resolution of monetary disputes.

The applicant, Berardi Construction, sought to rescind an order to comply issued by the County of Norfolk requiring a building permit for a retaining wall.

The court found that the retaining wall was not a "building" for the purposes of the Building Code Act and that no building permit was required.

The order to comply was rescinded, and the issue of damages was directed to proceed to trial.

The court considered whether the buyers were entitled to repudiate a real estate purchase agreement due to a storm sewer easement registered on title, and the resulting damages.

The court found the buyers were not entitled to repudiate, as the easement did not materially affect the use of the property, and awarded damages to the sellers, including the forfeited deposit and consequential losses.

The plaintiffs sought leave to deliver and rely on an expert opinion from a land surveyor shortly before trial in a dispute over the existence and scope of an easement for access to their property.

The court reviewed the procedural history, including multiple changes of counsel and pre-trial conferences, and considered whether the plaintiffs had a reasonable explanation for the late delivery of the expert report.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not provided a reasonable explanation and that granting leave would cause undue delay and potential prejudice.

The motion was dismissed.

The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward sought a declaration of ownership and a vesting order for MacDonald Street in Wellington, Ontario, a parcel of land with no registered owner.

The court found that the County had established ownership through decades of public expenditure and maintenance, as well as by-law dedication, and that the requirements for dedication and acceptance as a public highway were met.

The court also exercised its discretion to grant a vesting order, correcting the title to the subject lands.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff mortgagee, MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc., against the defendants, Cajetan Jose Fernandes and Maria Dolly Fernandes, for possession of the mortgaged property and payment of the outstanding balance.

The main dispute concerned the validity and enforceability of certain fees and charges levied by the plaintiff, particularly those related to mortgage renewals and default.

The court found that most fees were contractually agreed to and enforceable, except for certain penalties (such as NSF fees) which were found to be unenforceable as penalties under the Interest Act and common law.

The court also found that the summary judgment process was appropriate in this case, as there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

This decision concerns the sale of a jointly owned residential property following the breakdown of a common law relationship.

The applicant, Cindy Lee Ann Cayen, sought urgent terms for the sale of the home, including an order requiring the respondent, Chad Parish, to vacate the property due to his ongoing non-compliance with previous court orders for sale.

The court found that the respondent had not appealed the orders, had obstructed the sale, and had not provided evidence of a viable plan to purchase the applicant’s interest.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property within 21 days and granted the applicant leave to obtain a writ of possession if necessary.

The distribution of sale proceeds was reserved.

The court considered a motion by Salerno Realty Inc., Brokerage to dismiss Intercity Realty Inc., Brokerage’s action for breach of contract and commission entitlement, on the basis that the matter had already been determined by arbitration under the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) process.

The court found that its jurisdiction was ousted by the TRREB Arbitration Guidelines, which required members to submit commission disputes to arbitration.

The court also found that issue estoppel applied, as the issues had been fully adjudicated in arbitration, and dismissed the action against Salerno.

The decision did not affect Intercity’s claim against the defendant Mr. Cardwell.

This decision concerns the transition of the receivership of the "The One" development project at Yonge and Bloor in Toronto to Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court granted a discharge order for the receiver, an initial CCAA order, and approved a transaction with Tridel Builders Inc. for project completion.

The court also denied an adjournment request from a late-appearing stakeholder, approved the appointment of a monitor and chief restructuring officer, and authorized various charges and reliefs to facilitate restructuring and maximize value for stakeholders.