5 total
A municipality's statutory right to collect tenant rents for vital services arrears does not survive a power of sale.
The owner of a residential apartment complex defaulted on natural gas payments.
The City of Hamilton intervened under its Vital Services By-law, paid for the gas, registered a lien, and directed tenants to pay rent to the City pursuant to s. 221(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The first mortgagee subsequently sold the property under power of sale to a bona fide purchaser for value.
The City claimed its statutory right to collect rents survived the sale.
The Court of Appeal held that the City's right to direct rent payments is a statutory collection device, not an interest in land, and does not survive the transfer of the property to a bona fide purchaser for value.
A property tax refund from a pre-closing assessment appeal belongs to the vendor, not the purchaser.
The vendor of an apartment building appealed its property tax assessment and subsequently sold the property.
After closing, the assessment appeal succeeded, resulting in a tax refund that the City paid to the purchaser pursuant to s. 306(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.
The vendor sought the refund, arguing unjust enrichment.
The Court of Appeal held that the right to the refund was a chose in action that did not run with the land and was not assigned to the purchaser.
The Court further held that s. 306(2) is merely an administrative provision and does not provide a juristic reason for the purchaser to retain the refund.
Limitation period for a mortgagee's action for possession begins upon default, not when mortgage is signed.
The appellant mortgagor appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent mortgagee possession of a property.
The appellant argued that under the Land Registration Reform Act, the mortgagee was entitled to take possession at any time, meaning the ten-year limitation period commenced when the mortgage was signed rather than upon default.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the mortgagee only has the right of possession after notice and default, and therefore the limitation period begins to run upon default.
A uniform ten-year limitation period applies to actions for possession, payment, and power of sale under a mortgage.
The appellant lent money to the respondents secured by a charge on their condominium.
The respondents defaulted on payments in 1990.
Over ten years later, the appellant commenced power of sale proceedings and an action for possession and payment.
The motions judge held that all claims were barred by the Limitations Act and ordered the charge discharged.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that a uniform ten-year limitation period applies to remedies under charges or mortgages, including actions for possession, actions on the covenant, and power of sale proceedings.
Appeal allowed; non-solicitation clause found to be a penalty but provable damages awarded for lost training investment.
The appellant cleaning company appealed the dismissal of its action for breach of contract.
The respondent health club terminated its cleaning contract with the appellant and immediately hired two of the appellant's cleaners, breaching a non-solicitation clause that required payment of one year's compensation.
The trial judge found the clause was an unenforceable penalty and dismissed the action because the appellant claimed no actual damages.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, agreeing the clause was a penalty but finding the appellant suffered provable damages from the loss of its investment in training the cleaners.
The Court awarded $12,600 in damages based on the appellant's lost profit during the six-month training period.
