Real Estate Law - ODC

The respondents applied to the City of Toronto for demolition permits.

After 19 months without a decision, they appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The City argued the appeal was out of time under section 3 of the City of Toronto Act, 1985.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, concluding that the time limits conflicted with section 33(4) of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the City's appeal, finding no conflict between the statutes but holding that the time limit in section 3 was directory rather than mandatory, and that the appeal was filed in time.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an Agreement to Lease was a valid and binding contract and that he was in breach for failing to commence tenant improvements.

The appellant argued that the respondent repudiated the agreement by insisting on a draft lease with terms significantly different from the Agreement to Lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that the disputed terms in the draft lease were incompatible with the financial principles of the Agreement to Lease, and therefore the agreement remained enforceable when the respondent terminated it due to the appellant's default.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision determining compensation for the City of Toronto's expropriation of subsurface easements for existing pipelines.

The appellant argued the Board erred by denying damages for business losses caused by delay and by failing to award interest and costs.

The appellant also sought to adduce fresh evidence to increase its claim for injurious affection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that there was no causal nexus between the expropriation and the business losses was reasonable.

The Court also refused to admit the fresh evidence, as it could have been adduced earlier and would not have affected the result.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in favour of the plaintiff.

The motion judge had found it arguable that the plaintiff, a limited partner, had a reasonable claim to an interest in the property through a constructive trust.

The Divisional Court found that while there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant granting leave, as the motion judge had merely found the legal propositions to be arguable rather than making new law.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Board had determined that the respondent's proposed large retail store development in a designated Employment Area did not constitute a 'conversion' under the Growth Plan, and thus did not require a municipal comprehensive review.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the application was not premature given the fundamental nature of the question, there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation of the Official Plan and Growth Plan, and the issue was of sufficient general importance to land use planning in Ontario.

The Town of Oakville appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that stayed a zoning by-law against the respondents, who were growing crops on contaminated former refinery lands zoned industrial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby denying natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court held as a matter of law that 'farming' is a land use, not a 'normal farm practice', and the Farming and Food Production Protection Act cannot be used to introduce a new agricultural use on land where farming is prohibited by a valid zoning by-law.

The defendant tenant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to stay the plaintiff landlord's action for unpaid rent.

The tenant argued the dispute should be arbitrated pursuant to a shareholder agreement.

The court granted the extension of time but denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that the rent dispute arose solely under the lease, which contained no arbitration clause.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his Small Claims Court action against his real estate lawyer for professional negligence and breach of contract arising from a four-day delay in closing a home purchase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the delay was caused by the appellant's failure to obtain fire insurance, which prevented the tendering of mortgage funds.

The court also rejected the appellant's claim of a denial of due process, finding the trial judge's interventions during the hearing were appropriate and did not demonstrate bias.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $6,300 for the cost of building a retaining wall due to the appellants undermining the lateral support of her property.

The appellants also appealed the dismissal of their counterclaim for malicious prosecution.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied the correct subjective-objective test for malicious prosecution and that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the respondent's land was in its natural state, making the loss of lateral support actionable in nuisance.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that granted four minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey retirement home in a Highway Commercial zone.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Board failed to properly apply the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, misinterpreted the Official Plan and zoning by-law, and failed to justify how significant departures from density limits and lot coverage requirements could be considered minor.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that denied them a $10,000 fee for preparing a Professional Marketing Package to obtain mortgage financing.

The trial judge found the appellants were acting as unregistered mortgage brokers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were 'carrying on business' as mortgage brokers and that it would be contrary to public policy to allow an unregistered broker to enforce payment of a fee under the Mortgage Brokers Act.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application under the Road Access Act to close an access road on their land, which provided the sole motor vehicle access to the respondents' cottage.

The parties had been litigating over the road for 20 years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' application was an attempt to relitigate an issue that was res judicata due to a 2005 consent order.

The court also found that the respondents had a legal right to use the road based on previous agreements and court orders.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Region's decision to consent to the sale of a non-profit housing co-operative to the Region's social housing arm.

The Co-op was in receivership due to financial difficulties and need for capital repairs.

The Region consented to the sale without notifying the Co-op's board or members.

The Divisional Court held that the Region's decision was judicially reviewable and that the Region breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

However, given the urgent need for repairs, the court declined to quash the consent and deferred the matter to the Commercial List where the sale motion was pending.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents $1,859,999 for injurious affection to their remaining lands following an expropriation.

The appellants argued that a previously granted parkland dedication credit settled the claim, should be set off against the damages, or that the Board erred in calculating the lost development units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court held that the parkland credit related to the expropriated land, while the injurious affection claim related to the loss of opportunity to build townhouses on the remaining land, meaning there was no double recovery.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the defendants in a dispute between two family-owned companies over commercial lease rent payments.

The plaintiffs argued the motions judge erred in finding irreparable harm and exceeded his jurisdiction by characterizing their conduct as illegal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision and concluding the matter did not raise issues of public importance justifying a hearing by a full panel.

The appellant developer appealed two Ontario Municipal Board decisions that upheld a development charge of $287,904.22 paid to the respondent municipality.

The appellant argued the municipality's Commissioner erred by relying on standard design flow guidelines rather than actual water usage and conservation measures to determine water demand under the applicable by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the by-law's language was clear and the Commissioner's exercise of discretion was reasonable.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence of actual water usage was also dismissed as it did not relate to a question of law.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Board had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to impose conditions on a private developer's subdivision approval for the benefit of an adjacent private landowner's future development.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on jurisdiction and rejecting the argument that procedural defects could bestow jurisdiction.

Beechridge Farms Inc. sought leave to appeal a decision of an Ontario Municipal Board Review Panel that ordered a new hearing.

The Review Panel had found that the original hearing member breached procedural fairness by refusing to grant the respondents a short adjournment to consider the implications of the newly enacted Places to Grow Act and its Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Review Panel's conclusion that the refusal of the adjournment was unreasonable and a denial of natural justice.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision allowing a subdivision application to proceed to a hearing.

The central issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction under the Planning Act despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act requiring a development permit before any development decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to address the mandatory language of the amended legislation.

The Court further held that the respondent did not have a vested right to a hearing before the Board.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his negligence claim against his former law firm.

The law firm's secretary had negligently disclosed a private agreement of purchase and sale to a real estate agent, who subsequently obtained a $10,000 judgment against the appellant for unpaid commission.

The trial judge found the law firm negligent but dismissed the action because the appellant had not yet paid the judgment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appellant had suffered damages upon the filing of a writ of execution.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish causation; the real estate agent already knew of the private sale, and the appellant's damages arose from his own contractual obligation to pay the commission.