Real Estate Law - ODC

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing their motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a second mortgagee, alleged a constructive trust and fraudulent conduct following a power of sale that resulted in a shortfall.

The court applied the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) and found no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's findings on triable issues or material non-disclosure, and no error in principle in the exercise of discretion to maintain the CPL.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay a real estate commission to the respondent brokerage based on a Buyer's Representation Agreement (BRA).

The appellant argued he never signed the BRA and had limited English comprehension.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact by misapprehending the appellant's evidence regarding his signature and failing to consider his language limitations.

The court concluded the appellant did not knowingly sign the BRA, set aside the trial judgment, and dismissed the action.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a costs order requiring her to pay $9,344 to the respondent condominium corporation.

The dispute originated from the respondent's request to access the appellant's unit for plumbing repairs, which escalated into a court application despite the appellant's willingness to grant access.

The Divisional Court found the application judge made an error in principle by failing to consider the respondent's premature resort to litigation, unnecessary steps, and scheduling conflicts created by the respondent.

The appeal was allowed, the costs order was set aside, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court order that dismissed his appeal of a Property Standards Order and an Order to Comply requiring him to remove structures and debris from his property.

The Divisional Court held it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Property Standards Order, as the lower court's decision was final under the Building Code Act.

The court dismissed the appeal of the Order to Comply, rejecting the appellant's argument that a Crown Patent exempted his land from provincial and municipal regulation.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for water damage to her neighbour's property caused by a detached downspout.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the law.

The court noted that Small Claims Court reasons must be considered in light of the court's informal nature and statutory mandate for efficiency.

The appellant, a listing real estate broker, appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding he was unjustly enriched and ordering him to share a commission with the respondent, a co-operating brokerage.

The respondent's agent had introduced the buyers to the property but failed to obtain a signed Buyer Representation Agreement.

The buyers subsequently approached the appellant directly, stated they were unrepresented, and signed a Buyer Representation Agreement with him.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellant performed the work of a co-operating broker and had a valid juristic reason to retain the full commission.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss the defendants' appeal from orders setting aside a certificate of stay and directing the enforcement of a writ of possession for a property.

The defendants had failed to pay rent under a lease agreement tied to an uncompleted purchase and sale transaction.

The court found that the orders appealed from were not stayed by the filing of a notice of appeal, as they were not orders under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also concluded that the appeals were manifestly devoid of merit and quashed them, directing the sheriff to enforce the writ of possession.

The appellant sought an easement over Crown lands subject to unpatented mining claims held by the respondent to build a road to a proposed mine.

The respondent refused consent, intending to build a railway on the same corridor.

The Mining and Lands Commissioner (MLC) dismissed the appellant's application to dispense with consent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the MLC's decision unreasonable, as it misinterpreted the Mining Act by failing to apply the limitations on surface rights to unpatented claims on Crown land and improperly required the appellant to prove a public interest.

The Court substituted its own decision, dispensing with the respondent's consent, finding no evidence that the road would significantly interfere with actual or proposed mining activities on the claims.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that approved ten minor variances for the responding parties' proposed home construction.

The moving party, a neighbour who had 'participant' status at the OMB hearing, argued the OMB's reasons were insufficient and failed to demonstrate it grappled with the issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the OMB's reasons were sufficient given the brief, uncontested expert evidence presented at the hearing.

In obiter, the court noted that a 'participant' at an OMB hearing likely lacks standing to seek leave to appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a development charges by-law passed by the respondent municipality, arguing that the municipality failed to provide adequate notice of public meetings, thereby denying procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found that while the municipality failed to strictly comply with statutory notice requirements for the first meeting, procedural fairness was not denied.

However, the court held that the applicant was denied procedural fairness regarding the second meeting because the Mayor had explicitly promised further notice and an opportunity to be heard, which was not provided.

The court declined to quash the by-law but ordered the municipality to refund development charges paid by the applicant and other affected landowners during an 18-month transition period.

The court released a decision allowing the appeal and awarding the appellant $15,000 in agreed costs for the appeal.

The parties were invited to make written submissions on the costs of the original application.

The applicant sought $15,000, while the respondent sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, citing an informal settlement offer and the improper naming of condominium directors as individual respondents.

The court found that while the applicant had a technical victory regarding the status certificate, the practical result favoured the respondent.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs of the original application.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that consolidated his application for the sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act with ongoing oppression remedy actions involving his former business associates.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the consolidation order, as the property dispute was sufficiently connected to the broader business dispute, and the matter was not of general importance.

The applicants sought to subdivide land and appealed draft conditions to the Ontario Municipal Board, arguing Charter violations.

The City successfully moved to strike the Charter issues.

Nine months later, the applicants sought reconsideration, which the Board refused.

A single judge of the Divisional Court denied leave to appeal that refusal.

The applicants then moved before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the single judge's decision.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding the single judge did not decline jurisdiction and reasonably concluded the Board's emphasis on finality and procedural rules was appropriate.

The appellants appealed a trial decision awarding the plaintiffs $20,000 for a purchaser's lien and dismissing their counterclaim and crossclaims, as well as the subsequent costs awards.

The appellants argued the $20,000 award constituted double recovery because the plaintiffs had previously settled with other defendants for $400,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no double recovery because the purchaser's lien claim was only advanced against the appellants.

The court also found no error in principle in the trial judge's discretionary costs awards.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay rent arrears and accelerated rent under a commercial lease.

The appellants argued the lease was void ab initio because the zoning bylaw did not permit their auto leasing business without a minor variance or operating in conjunction with an auto repair shop.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the lease expressly placed the obligation on the tenant to obtain all necessary permits and comply with zoning laws at its own expense.

The tenant's failure to seek a variance or arrange its business to comply with the bylaw did not render the contract void.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the validity of certain provisions of a City of Ottawa zoning by-law.

The OMB had found some provisions valid, some invalid, and sent others back to the City for reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that while the issue was important and the standard of review was reasonableness, the appeal was premature because the final language of the by-law had not yet been settled by the City's reconsideration.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered against their residential property.

The respondents had obtained the certificate in the context of an oppression remedy claim involving a corporate dispute.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and discharged the certificate, finding that the motions judge erred in law by applying a broad equitable discretion instead of determining whether there was a reasonable claim to an interest in land.

The court concluded that the pleadings did not demonstrate a reasonable claim to an interest in the land, as the claims were for damages and corporate remedies, not for an interest in the property itself.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that upheld interim control by-laws and zoning amendments restricting short-term accommodations in the Town of Blue Mountains.

The moving parties argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Planning Act, the Human Rights Code, and the doctrine of 'people zoning', and that it denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any question of law, concluding the by-laws regulated land use rather than personal characteristics and were a justified planning response.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment in a commercial lease dispute.

The underlying action involved a dispute over a $210,000 payment, which the tenants claimed was a security deposit and the landlord claimed was a commission.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that a trial was necessary to resolve conflicting evidence, and concluding that the matter did not involve issues of public importance.

The appellant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his real estate broker registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant made false statements and his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity.

The Divisional Court found these findings reasonable but held the Tribunal's failure to address whether the renewal could be granted subject to conditions rendered the decision unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a rehearing.