Real Estate Law - OCA

The respondent sued the appellant lawyer and law firm for breach of trust, alleging they paid loan funds out of their trust account without her authorization.

The respondent had provided a collateral mortgage on her home as secondary security for a loan to a company owned by her children.

The trial judge found the appellants liable for breach of trust.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that because the respondent's mortgage was collateral and secondary, the loan funds were advanced to the primary borrower.

The law firm properly held the funds in trust for the primary borrower and paid them out on its instructions.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision denying them defence cost coverage under a Professional Liability Insurance Policy provided by LawPro.

The motion judge found that the appellant acted as an intermediary between the parties in arranging mortgage transactions, triggering the mortgage broker exclusion.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the appellant's actions as a middleman in arranging the mortgages meant the claim fell within the exclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant tenant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent landlord damages for the cost of restoring commercial premises at the end of a tenancy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a 1999 consolidation lease did not eliminate the tenant's repair obligations from earlier leases.

The court also upheld the assessment of damages for floor, electrical, and HVAC repairs as supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that an administration fee for loss of rent was not supported by the wording of the lease.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its action and allowing the respondents' counterclaim for rescission of an agreement for the removal of sand and gravel from the respondents' property.

The trial judge rescinded the agreement on the basis of unconscionability, noting the unequal bargaining power, lack of independent legal advice, and the fact that the unilingual francophone respondents were presented with an English agreement containing overreaching terms.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, his rejection of the laches defence, or his award of $4,000 for unjust enrichment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision declaring their option to purchase a residential parcel of farmland void for contravening section 50 of the Planning Act.

The appellants had sold a 74-acre farm but entered into an option agreement to purchase back the residential portion.

The Court of Appeal held that the option agreement violated section 50(3) because the grantor retained abutting lands not within a registered plan of subdivision.

The Court further found that the agreement lacked an express condition requiring compliance with the Planning Act under section 50(21), and declined to rectify the contract due to a lack of evidence of a prior oral agreement to include such a condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a commercial tenancy dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the relationship was not a strict tenancy at will and that an accounting was appropriate due to premature termination.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred by affording the respondents double recovery—awarding full compensation for renovations while also granting a rent-free period.

The judgment was varied to require the respondents to pay reasonable rent and utilities for the initial period, reducing the amount payable by the appellants by $8,822.57.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants, land developers, retained the respondent engineering firm to prepare a geotechnical report on soil conditions for a townhouse development.

The report estimated pile foundations would need to be driven to an average depth of 20 feet, but ultimately they had to be driven to 60 feet, resulting in additional construction costs.

The appellants sued for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the failure to drill a sixth borehole was due to inaccessibility and that there was no evidence the respondent inaccurately interpreted the borehole data.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that the respondent tenant, who operated a gas bar in a commercial plaza, was not required to share in the costs of maintaining common facilities.

The application judge had found the lease required payment but was amended by subsequent conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the tenant's cross-appeal, holding that the lease was unambiguous and, properly interpreted, did not require the tenant to contribute to common facilities maintenance costs.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they did not have a substantial interest in a property.

The Court of Appeal held that even considering the appellants' $130,000 equity in the property, they could not show the requisite substantial interest.

Combined with the absence of persuasive evidence of alternative funding, the application judge correctly concluded there were no special circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.

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 appellants appealed a decision finding that the respondent's use of property for horse-related activities was a legal non-conforming use under the zoning by-law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's findings were supported by the record and that section 45(2) of the Planning Act did not apply.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was allowed, as the application judge erred in denying costs based on pre-litigation conduct.

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.