Evan A. Presvelos

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for compensation for the expropriation of a subsurface portion of a property by Metrolinx.

The parties were not prepared for the conference but indicated they were engaged in productive mediation discussions and communicating with other nearby property owners.

The Tribunal found it premature to schedule a second conference and advised the parties that Tribunal-led mediation could be arranged.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order dated December 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that the appeal be expedited.

The court also directed that the moving party's motion for interim relief be scheduled on an expedited basis before a single judge.

The appellant, a not-for-profit corporation, appealed an application judge's order setting terms for its upcoming annual general meeting and board elections following a disrupted meeting and internal governance dispute.

The appellant argued the terms regarding membership eligibility and election procedures were inconsistent with its by-laws.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge had broad discretion under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act to impose terms for fair elections and made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings regarding membership.

The moving party, a not-for-profit corporation, sought an urgent stay of an application judge's order prescribing the process for determining membership and voting rights for an upcoming annual general meeting, pending an appeal.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

Finding that the appeal raised a serious issue, that there was potential for irreparable harm due to the history of disruption at previous meetings, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the expedited appeal date, the court granted the stay.

The appellants sought to appeal the dismissal of their application challenging outdoor gathering restrictions imposed as public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was initially dismissed for lack of public interest standing.

The Court of Appeal determined that the underlying application was moot because the challenged regulations were no longer in force.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal regarding Mr. Baber's private interest standing, finding that this issue was also moot and that a decision would not resolve any live controversy or bind future hypothetical challenges.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages in lieu of specific performance for a failed residential real estate transaction.

The appellants (vendors) argued that the respondents (purchasers) were not entitled to specific performance or damages in lieu after accepting the return of their deposit, and that the motion judge used the wrong appraisal date for calculating damages.

The Court of Appeal declined to entertain the deposit argument as it was a new issue on appeal.

However, the Court found that the motion judge erred by not using the actual sale price of the replacement property as the best indication of its value for damages calculation, instead relying on an earlier appraisal.

The appeal was allowed, and the damages awarded to the respondents were reduced from $150,000 to $56,000.

Following a motion for summary judgment where the moving party (defendant) was granted alternate relief permitting the sale of a disputed property, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found the moving party was the successful party, as she obtained the primary relief sought regarding the property's sale and successfully proved a disputed agreement was invalid.

The court awarded the moving party costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $26,028.43, and declined the responding party's request to pay the costs from the sale proceeds held in court.

The moving party (defendant) sought summary judgment dismissing the responding party's (plaintiff's) action for a 50% interest in a residential property, or alternatively, an order for partition and sale.

The parties are sisters.

The moving party is the sole registered owner, but the responding party resides in the property and claims a beneficial interest based on an alleged written agreement.

The court found the alleged agreement to be invalid and likely forged, relying on expert handwriting evidence and factual inconsistencies.

However, the court concluded a trial was necessary to determine if the responding party had any monetary claim to the property's proceeds based on her financial contributions.

The court ordered the property sold, with 50% of the net proceeds paid to the moving party and the remaining 50% paid into court pending trial.

A case management conference was held to address an issue regarding whether the appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board had been settled.

The court directed the parties to exchange materials on the settlement issue and place them before the panel scheduled to hear the appeal.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for an appeal from an interim decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The court ordered that the appeal proceed before a three-judge panel via video conference.

Detailed directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of documents, factums, compendiums, and costs materials using a password-protected drop box.

The tenant brought a motion to stay an eviction order pending its appeal of a decision finding it failed to validly exercise its option to renew a commercial lease.

The court first determined that the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court, and transferred the appeal.

Sitting as a Superior Court judge, the court then applied the RJR-MacDonald test and granted the stay, finding the appeal raised a serious issue, the tenant would suffer irreparable harm to its business if evicted, and the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

This case involved an application and cross-application concerning a commercial lease dispute.

The tenant, 2324702 Ontario Inc. (Remix), sought a declaration that its lease was in full force and effect and had been validly renewed.

The landlord, 1305 Dundas W Inc., sought termination of the lease and possession.

The court granted Remix relief from forfeiture for a single instance of non-payment of rent, finding the breach not grave and the landlord suffered no damages.

However, the court found that Remix failed to properly exercise its option to renew the lease, as its communications were equivocal and conditional, not a clear and unequivocal notice.

The court also rejected arguments of waiver and estoppel regarding the renewal.

Additionally, the court applied estoppel against the landlord, preventing it from retroactively claiming increased realty taxes based on a strict lease provision, due to its prior conduct of adopting the previous landlord's calculation method.

Ultimately, the lease was declared expired, and Remix was ordered to vacate the premises within 60 days, while also being ordered to pay outstanding rent increases and a reasonably allocated share of realty taxes.