Real Estate Law - ODC

The applicant, a residents' association, sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to grant a heritage permit to a property owner (the intervenor) for the construction of a new house in a designated heritage conservation district.

The applicant argued the proposed house was too large and violated the mandatory mass and height guidelines of the District Plan, and that it was denied procedural fairness because it was not invited to appear before City Council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the City's interpretation of the District Plan was reasonable and that the applicant had been afforded extensive procedural fairness during the committee stages, exceeding the requirements of the statutory scheme.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed her motion to set aside a prior consent dismissal order.

The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant could not appeal a consent order without leave under s. 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Furthermore, the order dismissing the motion to set aside the consent order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore could not be appealed to the Divisional Court under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was quashed without costs.

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario's Appeal Panel upholding a finding that she breached the Code of Ethics.

The applicant had included inaccurate property tax and local improvement charge information in a real estate listing without a sufficient public disclaimer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Discipline Panel reasonably excluded the applicant's proposed expert evidence because it went to the ultimate issue and was unnecessary.

The Court also held that the Discipline Panel's finding of professional misconduct was reasonable, as the applicant failed to clearly communicate that the tax figures were unverified estimates.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed its motion for directions.

The moving party had argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make a prior consent order regarding a zoning by-law amendment because the relevant 'bonusing regime' under the Planning Act had been repealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed the motion on procedural grounds because it should have been brought as a request for review under Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules and was out of time.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated January 2, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, which upheld a discipline finding that she breached the Code of Ethics by failing to disclose a competing offer and a multiple representation situation.

The applicant argued she made the disclosure but the timing was unfortunate, and that the committee unreasonably found she was motivated by greed.

The Divisional Court found the underlying facts straightforward and the decision reasonable as to both liability and penalty, noting that even if her motives were to appease her client rather than financial gain, she was required to follow the Code of Ethics.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order for the partition and sale of a home jointly owned with her elderly mother.

The appellant argued the mother had gifted her interest in the home and that the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that an order for sale under the Partition Act is a final order, meaning no leave was required.

On the merits, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother retained an interest in the property and that the sale was not oppressive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to appeal a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the Courts of Justice Act, as the order appealed from was final and should have been directed to the Court of Appeal.

Alternatively, the court found the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious on its face, as it sought to relitigate matters already adjudicated in prior proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the interest payable on compensation for expropriated land.

The appellant argued that interest should run from an earlier date based on a redevelopment use and at a higher rate of 12% due to delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings that the productive use of the land was as a rental building and ceased only upon formal expropriation.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's discretionary refusal to award a higher interest rate, as it had not been pleaded, and declined to consider a new claim for compound interest.

The applicant, a residents' association, sought judicial review of a municipal council decision approving a site plan application and heritage impact assessment for a large warehouse development in a heritage conservation district.

The applicant argued the council breached its procedural by-law by reconsidering the application without notice and acted in bad faith.

The Divisional Court granted the applicant public interest standing and found the application was not moot.

However, the court dismissed the application, holding that the city did not owe the applicant a duty of procedural fairness.

While the council did breach its procedural by-law regarding notice for the reconsideration motion, the breach did not amount to illegality or bad faith sufficient to quash the decision.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision awarding him $5,000 in nominal damages and $1,130 in special damages for an aborted real estate assignment agreement.

The appellant argued damages should have been assessed at the closing date rather than the date of breach, which would have yielded $195,000 due to a rising market.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing nominal damages should be $1.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no procedural unfairness or error in principle in the motion judge's decision to assess damages at the date of breach, as the appellant failed to prove he could not re-enter the market at that time.

The appellant, a real estate agent, appealed the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action against two brokerages for unpaid commissions.

The appellant had submitted a conditional offer on behalf of clients that was not accepted by the vendors, and subsequently sued for the cooperating broker's commission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that a conditional offer does not create a binding contract and the vendors had no obligation to accept it.

The court also rejected the appellant's claims of bias against the trial judge and upheld the trial costs awards.

The appellant municipality appealed a Drainage Referee's order denying it costs and sought a declaration that a referee who conducts a pre-hearing cannot preside at the hearing.

The respondent landowners cross-appealed the Referee's finding that a proposed drainage project was an 'improvement' under the Drainage Act rather than a new drainage works requiring a petition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the costs award and holding that a declaration was unnecessary given existing rules.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the Referee correctly distinguished prior case law and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the project was an improvement despite an increase in capacity.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under the Partition Act for the sale of a property registered solely in the respondent's name.

The application judge had dismissed the claim, finding on a paper record that the funds advanced by the appellant were a loan, not an investment giving rise to a trust interest.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in law by assessing credibility on material facts in dispute without directing a trial to hear viva voce evidence.

The judgment was set aside and a trial of the whole application was ordered.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three decisions of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) regarding a lot severance and zoning variances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that most of the proposed issues were questions of mixed fact and law.

The one potential question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act did not raise good reason to doubt the correctness of the TLAB's decision.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondent property owner, but no costs were awarded to the TLAB, which had unnecessarily participated in the motion contrary to a case management direction.

The appellant appealed an arbitration and cost award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court raised preliminary questions regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether leave to appeal was required under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court adjourned the hearing and directed the parties to provide written submissions on these jurisdictional issues.

The appellant purchased a property formerly owned by a library board, which was subject to a registered restrictive covenant prohibiting commercial use.

The registered covenant failed to identify the benefitted lands, rendering it legally unenforceable.

The respondent, owner of the adjacent lands, successfully applied to a motion judge to rectify the Land Titles Registry to include the benefitted lands.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the rectification, holding that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice of the benefitted lands.

The court emphasized that constructive notice is insufficient to defeat a registered interest under the Land Titles Act, and the appellant was entitled to rely on the registry's mirror and curtain principles.

Two groups of landowners appealed the Surveyor General's confirmation of a survey that extended road allowances to the water's edge of Georgian Bay, separating their properties from the beach.

The appellants argued the Surveyor General erred by ignoring a previous Divisional Court decision, misapplying common law principles of accretion, and rejecting estoppel arguments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding the Surveyor General made reasonable findings of fact supported by evidence, including that no accretion had occurred and that the original 1820s survey intended the road allowances to reach the water.

The court held the standard of review was correctness for law and palpable and overriding error for fact, and found no such errors.

The moving party, the City of Toronto, brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Board.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal in respect to the questions of law identified in the moving party's factum.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $10,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a boundary fence dispute.

The appellant argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because the Line Fences Act governed such disputes.

The Divisional Court noted that while the City of Toronto purported to opt out of the Line Fences Act, its bylaw did not establish an alternative scheme for apportioning costs as required by the Act.

The court adjourned the matter and directed that notice be given to the City of Toronto to provide written submissions on the effectiveness of its opt-out bylaw.