Real Estate Law - OCA

The respondents sought to enforce an arbitration clause in a Joint Use Agreement against the appellant, a successor in title, to resolve a snow removal dispute.

The motion judge appointed an arbitrator, finding the clause was an administrative covenant incidental to negative covenants.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitration clause was a positive covenant that did not run with the land and was therefore not binding on the appellant.

The court also found that the statutory exceptions under the Planning Act did not apply as they are limited to covenants enforced by a municipality.

The respondent owner built four rental buildings that were approved and inspected by the appellant municipality.

It was later discovered the buildings lacked required firewalls, leading to the tenants vacating and a mortgage shortfall.

The municipality admitted liability for negligence at trial.

On appeal, the municipality argued the owner was contributorily negligent for the defective plans submitted by its contractor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground, finding no evidence the contractor breached the standard of care and upholding the trial judge's finding that the owner and contractor were not joint venturers.

The judgment amount and set-off were corrected on consent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale of land.

The appellants had failed to pay the deposit within the stipulated five days, and the vendors treated the agreement as at an end.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was entitled to conclude that the appellants knew an oral comment by the vendors' representative was not legally binding to amend the agreement or waive rights.

The appellant mortgaged several properties to Royal Trust.

Following default, Royal Trust sold the properties under power of sale and sued for the deficiency.

The appellant counterclaimed, alleging the sales were improvident and Royal Trust acted in bad faith.

The trial judge awarded judgment to Royal Trust for a portion of the deficiency and dismissed the counterclaim.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his findings on improvident sale, bad faith, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reliance on valuation evidence, his rejection of the bad faith claims, or his exercise of discretion regarding costs.

The appellant challenged the validity of a bank charge renewal agreement dated October 31, 2000.

However, she did not challenge the validity of the prior renewal agreement or the underlying bank charge.

The Court of Appeal held that even if the October 2000 renewal were set aside, the respondent bank was entitled to partial summary judgment for possession due to the failure to discharge the bank charge when it matured in October 2000.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant town appealed a trial judge's decision declaring that a parcel of land was conveyed to it by mistake and was held in a resulting trust for the respondent developer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the conveyance was an inadvertent error by the respondent's real estate solicitor.

The Court also agreed that res judicata and limitation periods did not bar the claim, and declined to interfere with the trial judge's discretion to grant equitable relief despite the respondent's failure to convey other lands under a subdivision agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant husband appealed an order approving an agreement of purchase and sale for a property and granting a vesting order to the purchaser.

The Court of Appeal denied the appellant's request for an adjournment to retain counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and concluding that the appeal was moot because the property had already vested in the purchaser.

The appellant and respondent owned adjacent bush lots.

A dispute arose over the boundary line, with the appellant relying on an old fence and the respondent relying on a recent survey.

The Director of Titles determined that the fence was the best evidence of the original boundary.

The Divisional Court reversed this decision.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the Director's decision, finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness and that the Director reasonably applied the surveyors' hierarchy of evidence to conclude the fence marked the boundary.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for adverse possession of a parking space between 1984 and 1995.

The Court of Appeal noted disagreement with the trial judge's definition of adverse possession but upheld the result, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's rejection of the appellants' evidence regarding the extent of their use of the space.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondents relief from forfeiture and cancelling a municipal tax sale of their farm.

The respondents had failed to pay property taxes, and the township initiated a tax sale.

After tenders were opened but before the sale was finalized, the respondents offered to pay the full cancellation price.

The municipal treasurer refused, believing she had no discretion to cancel the sale once tenders were opened.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under subsection 12(6) of the Municipal Tax Sales Act, the treasurer retains the discretion to cancel a tax sale at any time up to the registration of the tax deed.

The appellant sued the Crown and the Conservation Authority for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation arising from an aborted land exchange.

The trial judge dismissed the contract claim but found the Conservation Authority liable for negligent misrepresentation, awarding reduced damages due to a failure to mitigate.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on damages and allowed the Conservation Authority's cross-appeal, finding that the appellant had not detrimentally relied on the misrepresentation and that the failure of a related sale transaction was not caused by the misrepresentation.

Following the release of the appeal decision, the parties disagreed on the settlement of the formal order regarding whether it should specify the date of termination of the commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal held that the omission of the termination date could be rectified under Rule 59.06 and determined by the remaining justices under s. 123(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court declared the lease was effectively terminated on November 19, 2001, noting this does not inhibit the trial judge's discretion on relief from forfeiture.

In a supplementary endorsement, the Court of Appeal clarified its previous order regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The Court confirmed that the trial of the issue was ordered only on Part 4 of section 444.1(1) of the Municipal Act, as the offer to lease entered into before June 11, 1998, satisfied Part 1 of the section.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision which found that minutes of settlement did not contain all essential terms to constitute an enforceable agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the essential terms of the easement and licensing agreements were set out in the minutes.

The dispute over a $2,000 cost for committee of adjustment approval did not justify resiling from the agreement, as the respondents were obligated to assume this cost, or alternatively, it was a minor matter that could be resolved by a judge.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was granted in accordance with the minutes of settlement.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding their right to an electricity connection under s. 28 of the Electricity Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants do not have an unqualified right to connection because their property can only be accessed over a third party's property and does not lie 'along any of the lines of the distribution system'.

The court held that Toronto Hydro's conditions of service requiring easements are reasonable and fall within its regulatory scheme.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice directing the sale of a property.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion in ordering the sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the municipality for abuse of public office and conspiracy to injure.

The appellants alleged that the municipality passed zoning by-laws prohibiting 'monster' homes with the true purpose of preventing student housing.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, concluding there was no evidence the by-laws were directed solely at the appellants or that student housing was specifically targeted.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal, requesting further written submissions on the issue of costs.

The appellant tenant sought to renew a cottage lease with the respondent municipality.

The municipality argued the renewal clause was void for uncertainty regarding the duration of the term, and that it lacked the power to enter the renewal without Ontario Municipal Board approval.

The application judge found the renewal clause void for uncertainty.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the duration of the renewal term could be ascertained from the lease's express terms.

The Court also held that the municipality was exercising its proprietary powers, not divesting legislative powers, and that OMB approval was not required because no costs were to be raised in a subsequent year.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for adverse possession over certain property areas, including a buffer zone.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's acceptance of evidence regarding the area south of Tree Line One was fatal to that part of the claim.

Regarding the western buffer zone, the Court held it was open to the trial judge to find that the appellants' use did not exclude the true owner's proprietary use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The landlord appealed a judgment declaring it had no right to terminate a commercial lease under a clause based on the tenant's gross revenue.

The application judge had granted the declaration on an application for relief from forfeiture, finding the landlord acted in bad faith and failed to prove the facts necessary to invoke the termination clause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment, holding that relief from forfeiture is not available for a contractual right of termination that is not based on default or breach.

The Court further held that the tenant bore the burden of proving the landlord was not entitled to exercise the termination right, and that the absence of good faith does not preclude a commercial landlord from exercising its contractual rights.