Real Estate Law - OCA

The appellants appealed a judgment, arguing that minutes of settlement foreclosed the complaints that were before Tarion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the minutes of settlement did not foreclose the complaints.

The appellants purchased a house from the respondents and subsequently discovered electrical, plumbing, and structural defects resulting from the respondents' DIY renovations and previous substandard work.

The appellants, who declined a pre-purchase inspection, sued for the cost of repairs, alleging the respondents concealed latent defects.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondents were unaware of the defects and did not actively conceal them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that 'active concealment' requires an intention to hide a known defect, and the principle of caveat emptor applied.

The appellant vendor appealed a decision granting the respondent purchaser the right to terminate an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction condominium unit and the return of his deposits.

The vendor had failed to provide occupancy by the specified closing date and argued the agreement implicitly allowed for extensions until the unit was substantially completed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement did not grant the vendor a unilateral right to extend the closing date and that the purchaser had not waived his right to terminate.

The appellant condominium corporations appealed the dismissal of their application for an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The appellants sought a declaration that the respondent developers acted oppressively by failing to provide a cost-sharing agreement for shared facilities between the residential condominiums and the commercial freehold ground floor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the appellants failed to establish a breach of reasonable expectations or oppressive conduct, as the absence of a cost-sharing agreement was fully disclosed to purchasers.

The self-represented appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his solicitor negligence action against the respondent.

The appellant claimed the respondent's negligence caused properties to be sold at depressed prices under power of sale, preventing him from recovering his investment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew of the power of sale proceedings but took no steps to protect his unsecured investment.

The court confirmed there was no legal basis for the respondent to register a lien on the properties, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering specific performance and purchase price abatements for two real estate transactions.

The trial judge found the appellant vendors were not ready to close, failed to bargain in good faith, and committed an anticipatory breach, while the respondent purchasers were ready, willing, and able to perform.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or his interpretation of the abatement clauses.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding the dedication and acceptance of land.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact on dedication and acceptance were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference, and that there was no error in the application of the law to those facts.

The appellant sued the respondents for damages arising from the alleged wrongful repudiation of an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The respondents had originally agreed to purchase the home from a builder, but the builder's agreement prohibited assignment or sale without consent.

The appellant and her husband, an experienced real estate broker, knew of this prohibition but still entered into an agreement with the respondents to purchase the property.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the agreement was illegal as it was designed to defeat the builder's rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding that the courts will not assist a plaintiff in recovering damages for the breach of an agreement intended to circumvent the known rights of an innocent third party.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the City of Windsor for the cost of restoring municipal roads to grade after Canadian Pacific Railway abandoned a railway line.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the railway's obligation to maintain the bridges continued after abandonment, and that the damages awarded represented the least cost to restore the roads to grade.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the ownership of lands under the Riverside Drive bridge and allegations of bad faith.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the road was a busy public road in the 1880s, the railway never intended to acquire the land under the bridge, and the road was a municipal street owned by the City.

The appellant's argument that the federal Crown owned the land was rejected, as the road was not an unopened road allowance laid out by a Crown surveyor.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision interpreting a protective installations clause in a commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the tenant was responsible for the costs of work required by a municipal authority, as the work comprised additions or alterations for the security of the tenant and its employees.

The court noted that under the lease, the tenant was required to satisfy itself that the premises were fit for occupation before entering into the lease.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent's carport overhung their property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was sufficient evidence on the record to support the trial judge's conclusion, which the appellants failed to answer with their own evidence.

The moving party, a self-represented mortgagor, sought leave to appeal an order quashing his appeal to the Divisional Court regarding the amount required to redeem a mortgage.

The Court of Appeal agreed the appeal to the Divisional Court was properly quashed because the original order was final, meaning the appeal lay to the Court of Appeal as of right.

Recognizing the moving party's consistent intention to appeal the substance of the original order, the Court treated the motion as one for an extension of time to appeal and granted it.

The Court directed written submissions on the merits of the appeal concerning a disputed prepayment fee.

The appellant commercial landlord appealed a decision allowing the respondent tenant to deduct hydro payments from its gross rent.

The lease contained a general clause stating gross rent included utilities, but a specific clause required the tenant to pay hydro directly to the utility company.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the principle that specific provisions qualify general ones.

The court found the specific requirement to pay hydro directly meant it was not an expense to be paid by the landlord and passed on as part of gross rent, and the tenant was not entitled to deduct these payments.

The tenant appealed a judgment interpreting a commercial lease.

A purchaser agreed to buy all of the tenant's shares, constituting a change in control and a 'transfer' requiring the landlord's consent.

The landlord consented while reserving its rights, and argued that under clause 11.03(b) it was entitled to an amended lease with increased rent.

The tenant argued the landlord's only option was to terminate the lease.

The Court of Appeal upheld the applications judge's finding that the change in control triggered clause 11, obliging the tenant to sign a new lease with increased rental payments, as the tenant's interpretation would render much of the clause ineffective.

The appellant insurer appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent mortgagees coverage under a fire insurance policy after the mortgaged property was destroyed by fire.

The mortgagors had vacated the property, and the mortgagees took control of it but failed to notify the insurer of the vacancy.

The Court of Appeal held that while the vacancy exclusion did not apply to the mortgagees due to the mortgage clause, Statutory Condition 4 did apply.

The mortgagees' actions in taking control of the vacant property constituted a material change in risk within their control and knowledge.

Their failure to notify the insurer voided the policy.

The appeal was allowed and the actions dismissed.

The appellant tenant breached a commercial lease by abandoning the premises.

The respondent landlord subsequently leased the property to a new tenant, with a 10-month overlap of the original lease term.

The tenant appealed the trial judge's calculation of damages, arguing the landlord received a benefit from avoiding a lengthy vacancy period.

The landlord cross-appealed regarding the deduction of tax consultant fees and the apportionment of rent-free periods and improvements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the tenant's mitigation argument was not pleaded and relied on speculation.

The cross-appeal was allowed in part, permitting the landlord to deduct the 50% contingency fee paid to a tax consultant to obtain a property tax rebate.

The appellant appealed an order regarding his activities in a condominium unit, arguing that the respondent's affidavit evidence was inadmissible for non-compliance with Rule 39.01(5).

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge's order and found that each paragraph was reasonably supported by admissible evidence based on the personal knowledge set forth in the affidavit.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that limited its damages for lost parking spaces to the value of 20 spaces ($40,650) and dismissed its claim for injurious affection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge relied on acceptable expert evidence and made no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of damages.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its claim for intentional interference with contractual relations against a condominium corporation.

The condominium corporation had enforced rules prohibiting the rental of units for transient or hotel purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding overwhelming evidence that the units were used for such purposes and that the corporation was statutorily obliged to enforce its rules.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to raise a triable issue regarding economic loss, as its evidence was merely second and third hand.