Real Estate Law - OCA

The appellant, a roofing contractor, appealed a trial judgment ordering it to pay over $900,000 to the respondent condominium corporation in a third-party action.

The main action involved a unit owner who successfully sued the condominium corporation for continuous roof leaks.

The Court of Appeal found that while the contractor was liable for breach of contract, it was not liable for negligent misstatement because the condominium corporation had unreasonably ignored expert reports in favour of the contractor's cheaper solution.

The Court of Appeal reassessed damages, finding the condominium corporation primarily responsible for the delay in fixing the roof, and reduced the damages awarded against the contractor to $50,913.97.

The appellant transferred property to her brother in 1990 and later brought an action claiming its return.

The trial judge rejected her claim of a resulting trust.

On appeal, the appellant abandoned the resulting trust claim and instead argued the existence of an intervening oral agreement reduced to writing in 2002.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the new argument and holding that it could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding the interpretation of a Quit Claim deed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Quit Claim deed was clear, unambiguous, and determinative, rejecting the argument that its meaning required reference to other documents.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the substantial costs order was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision finding it liable for tax under s. 189(1)(e) of the Mining Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the appellant's acquisition of mineral rights fell within the statutory definition of 'mining rights'.

The court held that the industry distinction between surface rights and surface access rights does not apply for the purpose of tax liability under the Act.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found them liable for trespass, issued a mandatory order, awarded damages including punitive damages, refused to order partition, and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's strong findings of fact or assessment of damages.

The court upheld the punitive damages due to the egregious nature of the trespass and affirmed the costs award.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Ontario Municipal Board's finding that an amendment to the City of London's Official Plan (OPA 403) was valid.

The appellants argued that OPA 403 impermissibly delegated authority by making a separate guideline determinative in designating woodlands as significant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the respondents that the Official Plan remains paramount and the City's discretion is not fettered by the guideline.

The appellant tenant appealed the dismissal of its action on a motion for summary judgment regarding a commercial lease termination.

The tenant argued the landlord was not entitled to terminate the lease, failed to provide proper notice of default, and that a post-termination agreement was unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the security deposit was deficient, the notice of default was sufficient under the Commercial Tenancies Act, and the post-termination agreement was not unconscionable as there was no inequality of bargaining power or unfairness.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding an easement claim based on the doctrine of Lost Modern Grant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in limiting the relevant 20-year period to the time before the property's conversion to the Land Titles system in 2001.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in law but found the error did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The sole witness relied upon by the appellant was deemed unreliable, and the evidence was insufficient to establish the required 20 years of open and continuous use.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant unit owner rented his condominium units to students, prompting the respondent condominium corporation to seek a compliance order enforcing a 'one family residence' declaration.

The appellant moved to stay the application, arguing the Condominium Act mandated mediation and arbitration.

The motion judge dismissed the stay, noting the dispute involved tenants who were not subject to arbitration, and splitting the proceedings would be unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under the Arbitration Act and Courts of Justice Act to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellant purchased a vacant lot and hired a builder recommended by a co-worker real estate agent to build a custom home with a walk-out basement apartment.

After the builder encountered financial difficulties and failed to complete the project, the appellant sued the co-worker for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The trial judge awarded damages for negligent misrepresentation regarding the legality of the basement apartment and punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal to increase damages, finding she failed to mitigate.

The Court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal in part, setting aside the punitive damages award because no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding adverse possession and the subsequent costs award based on an offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied the proper test for adverse possession and made factual findings well supported by the record.

The trial judge's view of the offer to settle was also deemed reasonable.

The appellants appealed an application judge's decision finding that the pylon sign in the engineering drawings accorded with the terms of the commercial lease.

The appellants argued the drawings showed a much larger footprint than the lease specified and placed the sign in a different location.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the lease terms were imprecise and subject to change upon completion of engineering drawings.

The Court also upheld the decision to order a trial of an issue regarding the remedy of specific performance, despite it not being pleaded, as there was no prejudice to the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring that their commercial lease expired and ordering vacant possession.

The appellants argued that they had entered into a binding conditional contract for the extension or renewal of the lease and that the landlords were estoppel from adducing evidence to the contrary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record amply supported the application judge's conclusion that the parties were merely engaged in negotiations and had not concluded an enforceable agreement to renew or extend the lease.

The appellants appealed an order declaring Mr. Pavicevic dead as of January 10, 1997, under the Declarations of Death Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the criteria for a declaration of death were met.

Because Mr. Pavicevic and the respondent held property as joint tenants, title passed automatically to the respondent upon his presumed death, defeating the appellants' spousal support order which was not registered on title until 2005.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued a corporate tenant for breach of a commercial lease and its sole shareholder personally for inducing the breach.

The plaintiff also sued a subsequent purchaser of the tenant's assets for unjust enrichment and fraudulent conveyance.

The trial judge found the tenant and shareholder liable but dismissed the claims against the purchaser.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the finding of personal liability against the shareholder, holding that entering into two leases was not a tortious act outside the scope of his authority and did not justify piercing the corporate veil.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the purchaser was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the usage of a full laneway to access the back of her property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if usage could be established, it would merely provide an alternative second way to access the property and did not rise to the level of reasonable necessity for the better enjoyment of the property.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing relief from forfeiture of an option agreement after it was terminated by the respondent due to persistent late payment of rent.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge was entitled to find the late payments constituted a material breach of the tenancy agreement.

Furthermore, the application judge made no error in principle in applying the test for relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for breach of contract and substantial indemnity costs.

The dispute arose from a commercial real estate development agreement where the respondent made changes to a site plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual determinations and noting the appellant failed to prove damages.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, holding that the trial judge erred by awarding substantial indemnity costs without hearing submissions on the scale.

The costs award was reduced to partial indemnity for the period before the appellant amended its pleadings to allege fraud.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting an adverse possession claim.

The respondents conceded that the trial judge erred in treating the matter as a case of mistake, which led to the application of the wrong test.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to consider whether there was an intention to exclude the owners from the uses they wanted to make of their property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and dismissed the action, awarding costs to the appellant.

The appellants moved for a stay of orders enforcing a writ of possession and directing the removal of their personal property from a residence, pending their appeal.

They argued that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, depriving the Superior Court of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, as the appellants had previously claimed ownership of the property and the landlord-tenant argument was a last-ditch effort to avoid eviction.