Daria Risteska

In an appeal arising from a failed residential real estate transaction, the appellants challenged the dismissal of their third-party negligence claim against their real estate agent and brokerage.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by confining the analysis to whether the agent had actively misled the appellants, without determining whether the agent negligently failed to advise them of the consequences of breaching the agreement and failed to address misleading communications with the vendors.

The court also held it was erroneous to rely principally on signatures and initials on the agreement to infer that the agreement had been adequately explained, without resolving whether the appellants reasonably misunderstood its effect.

Because the appeal record required factual and credibility findings that an appellate court should not make, a new trial before a different judge was ordered.

The costs order below was set aside, and the appellants received $20,000 in appeal costs.

Following a failed residential real estate transaction in which the purchasers did not pay the required deposit, the defendants pursued a third party claim against their real estate agent and brokerage for indemnity.

The central allegation was that the agent had advised the purchasers that the agreement was effectively conditional on delivery of the deposit and that non-payment would permit them to walk away without liability.

The court rejected that factual theory, finding the signed agreement and surrounding communications supported the conclusion that the purchasers had been committing to a firm deal and were later attempting to avoid completion after family advice.

The court accepted the general statement of the real estate agent’s duty of care but held no breach was established on the evidence.

The third party claim was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing dwelling on a property located on a barrier beach.

The Tribunal found that the property is located within a riverine floodplain and meets the definition of hazardous land under O. Reg. 41/24.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed development would increase the size of the building, thereby increasing the potential occupancy and the risk to health and safety during a regulatory flood event.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the property lacks safe access for vehicles and people during times of flooding, rendering the proposal inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the permit was upheld.

The appellant appealed an order for the partition and sale of a home jointly owned with her elderly mother.

The appellant argued the mother had gifted her interest in the home and that the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that an order for sale under the Partition Act is a final order, meaning no leave was required.

On the merits, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother retained an interest in the property and that the sale was not oppressive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff corporation, acting without counsel, sued multiple defendants for fraud, breach of contract, and interference with contractual relations after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim and for security for costs.

The court set aside a noting in default against one defendant, finding the plaintiff had improperly requisitioned it.

The court struck the majority of the claims without leave to amend, finding they were frivolous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The breach of contract claim against the property owners was struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $150,000 in security for costs before taking any further steps.

The Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether the Administrative Judge of the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to make orders under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (Anti-SLAPP provisions).

The court found that such jurisdiction lies exclusively with Superior Court judges, based on statutory interpretation, prior jurisprudence (Bruyea, Nanda, Ontario College of Teachers), and the incompatibility of the complex s. 137.1 process with the summary nature and rules of the Small Claims Court.

The appeals were allowed, confirming the Administrative Judge's lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application following a summary trial, in which he claimed damages against a non-profit housing shelter and its manager for negligence, breach of Toronto Shelter Standards, and violations of ss. 2, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims.

The court also found no unfairness in the conduct of the trial.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of his appeal for delay.

The court considered the factors for setting aside a dismissal, finding the appellant had a timely intention to appeal, moved quickly to set aside the dismissal, and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The court also confirmed it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the claim was in substance for monetary relief of less than $50,000 despite seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

The motion was granted and the appellant was given seven days to perfect his appeal.