Darren Smith

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration that an Option Agreement affecting their real estate was invalid.

They argued the respondent breached the agreement by failing to pay a proportionate share of property taxes for over two years, and that the agreement violated the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding no breach of the tax provision because the respondent had maintained a credit balance through estimated lump-sum payments.

While the court agreed the Option Agreement technically violated section 50(3)(b) of the Planning Act by allowing the grantor to retain a fee in abutting lands, it held the agreement was saved by section 50(21) because it contained an express condition making it subject to Planning Act compliance.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to issue certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against two Toronto properties, asserting a constructive trust based on alleged unjust enrichment after paying mortgages and expenses on behalf of the defendants.

The defendants argued that rents collected by the plaintiff exceeded the payments made and that no unjust enrichment occurred.

The court held that there was a triable issue regarding whether the plaintiff had been fully reimbursed and whether a constructive trust could be imposed.

However, the court declined to grant a CPL on one property because it had been sold and the proceeds would not satisfy the mortgage.

Leave to issue a CPL was granted only with respect to the Carlaw Avenue property.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a Kansas default judgment obtained against the respondent for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and sales losses.

The respondent resisted enforcement on the grounds that the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud and in breach of natural justice.

The court held that a real and substantial connection existed between Kansas and both the dispute and the respondent.

The alleged non‑disclosure of insurance proceeds did not constitute fraud and arguments regarding the validity of damages improperly attempted to relitigate the merits.

The Kansas procedures, including shorter response timelines and different default judgment rules, nonetheless satisfied principles of natural justice.