Real Estate Law - OCA

The appellant appealed an order declaring an agreement of purchase and sale valid and granting the purchasers specific performance and damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the essential terms of the contract were clear and binding.

The court upheld the application judge's findings that the property was unique, justifying specific performance, and that it was reasonable to calculate damages as of the date of judgment rather than the date of breach to account for the property's enhanced value pending planning approval.

The appellant appealed a confirmation order that credited the respondent mortgagee with $50,825.72 for utilities expenses.

The respondent cross-appealed the disallowance of credits for a $10,000 payment and $5,000 in legal fees.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the utilities credit to $6,204.78 because the respondent failed to establish the reasonableness of the excess payments.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as there was no evidence to support the claimed credits for the bonus or legal fees.

Following the disposition of the merits of the appeal on September 25, 2006, the Court of Appeal issued a supplementary endorsement regarding the costs of the application in the court below.

The court set aside the costs order below and awarded the appellants costs of the application fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge's reasons.

The court found there was nothing in writing to support the appellants' defence, and their affidavit material did not raise a viable issue concerning the bank's knowledge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that there was no oral agreement displacing the effect of title documents and no resulting trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that their conduct in registering a condominium declaration with a bifurcated common expense formula was oppressive.

The formula exempted undeveloped parcels from contributing to the maintenance of a ring road.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the declaration did not conflict with the Condominium Act, as the Act requires owners to contribute in the proportions specified in the declaration.

Furthermore, the developer's conduct was not oppressive because the formula was fully disclosed to purchasers before they bought their units, and it served a legitimate business purpose related to the staged nature of the development.

The appellant, Bank of Montreal, appealed an order granting the respondent, Royal Bank of Canada, priority over the proceeds of the sale of a property and collected rents.

The respondent's registered mortgage was void due to a violation of the Planning Act.

However, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision that the respondent was entitled to priority based on the equitable doctrine of subrogation, as it had advanced funds to pay off prior valid encumbrances and municipal taxes.

The Court also upheld the respondent's priority regarding the assignment of rents, which was validly registered under the Personal Property Security Act.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking an equitable mortgage was dismissed.

The appellant held a mortgage on a property and claimed an interest in insurance proceeds as collateral security.

The property was subsequently transferred to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the transfer satisfied the outstanding mortgage debt, thereby extinguishing the appellant's interest in the remaining insurance funds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant pig farm applied to expand its operations but was denied minor variances from a municipal zoning by-law that enforced minimum distance separation (MDS II) guidelines.

The appellant applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which held it had jurisdiction and exempted the appellant from the doubling factor of the MDS II guidelines.

The Divisional Court overturned this, finding the Board lacked jurisdiction over zoning by-laws.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Board does have jurisdiction to consider zoning by-laws under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

However, applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it directly contradicted the mandatory provincial MDS II guidelines, violating section 9 of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting possession of their property to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding corroborating evidence and equitable estoppel, and upheld the motion judge's reasons.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order regarding his right to occupy a stone house and an award of occupation rent.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the appellant's license to occupy the property was conditional on his continuing as caretaker/manager, and his resignation terminated that right.

However, the Court found no basis for the trial judge's award of occupation rent.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the occupation rent award.

The appellants appealed an order regarding their right to renew a mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that not being in default was a condition precedent to the privilege to renew.

As the mortgage was and remained in default, the appellants could not renew it.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment finding no genuine issue for trial in a real estate dispute.

The purchaser argued the respondent vendor was obligated to disclose the failure to conduct a final inspection of a porch and was therefore guilty of misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal basis for such an obligation, and concluded the purchaser had no right to refuse to close or demand an abatement in the purchase price.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application regarding property ownership.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was no evidence the respondent owned or paid for the property.

The court also upheld the costs order, noting the appellant pursued the application even after learning of the bankruptcy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that an implied term of a commercial lease granted the respondent bank access to parking spaces via the landlord's laneway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's finding was supported by ample evidence and was not a palpable and overriding error.

The court also rejected the appellant's res judicata argument, noting that prior litigation did not concern the interpretation of the lease.

Leave to appeal the substantial indemnity costs award was refused, as the application judge's finding of malevolent conduct justified the scale.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that allowed an appeal from an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of a condominium cost-sharing agreement.

The dispute centered on the allocation of bulk hydro bill costs for the parking and service garage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly interpreted the agreement harmoniously to allocate the costs to the appellant, consistent with the building's single bulk hydro meter design.

The appellant condominium corporation obtained a compliance order against the respondent unit owner for operating a short-term rental business.

The appellant then added its actual legal and administrative costs to the respondent's common expenses and registered a lien under s. 85(1) of the Condominium Act.

The motion judge discharged the lien, finding that 'additional actual costs' under s. 134(5) did not include legal costs beyond those awarded by the court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 134(5) permits a condominium corporation to recover its actual legal costs incurred in obtaining the order, including appeal costs, but not enforcement or unrelated administrative costs.

A reference was ordered to determine the proper amount of the lien.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision interpreting a commercial lease provision regarding the reimbursement of realty taxes.

Following 1997 amendments to the Assessment Act, separate tax assessments for individual businesses in the shopping plaza were abolished, resulting in an 'en bloc' assessment for the entire property.

The landlord applied a formula in the lease designed for such an eventuality to allocate taxes.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the clear language of the lease anticipated this scenario, and the formula was correctly applied since the tenant had not obtained a separate assessment.

The appellant condominium corporation and the original developer entered into a reciprocal agreement to share expenses for a recreational facility.

The developer's successor in title, the respondent, refused to pay the interim expenses.

The appellant argued that the positive covenant to pay expenses ran with the land or was enforceable under the English benefit and burden or conditional grant exceptions.

The Court of Appeal held that positive covenants do not run with freehold land and declined to adopt the English exceptions, stating that any reform to this area of property law must be undertaken by the legislature.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims against the respondents and a real estate agent.

The appellants argued that a release signed in blank was only to be used if a first real estate transaction did not close, alleging the two transactions were linked.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the parol evidence rule precluded evidence of the alleged linkage, as the documentation contained no such linkage and was reviewed by the appellants' lawyers.

The claim against the real estate agent, also based on the alleged linkage, was similarly dismissed.

Borins J.A. dissented, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the release's provenance and the agent's alleged breach of fiduciary duty.