Real Estate Law - ODC

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to compel the examination of a Vice-President at Infrastructure Ontario in the context of an application for judicial review challenging the expropriation of its properties.

The applicant sought to supplement the record with evidence regarding the scope, rationale, and scheme of the expropriations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable evidentiary basis that the proposed witness participated in briefing the decision-maker, nor did the proposed topics fall within the limited exceptions for supplementing a record on judicial review.

The appellant and respondent, former common law spouses, co-owned a cottage property.

The respondent sought an order for the sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The application judge ordered the sale, including a term requiring any purchaser to grant a right-of-way to neighbouring property owners, reflecting the original purchase agreement.

The appellant appealed the inclusion of this term and the award of full indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the sale term, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that omitting the term would create uncertainty and reduce the sale price.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, varying the award from full to substantial indemnity because the application judge erroneously relied on an undertaking that did not apply to the proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that allowed the withdrawal of a draft plan of subdivision appeal by a neighboring developer.

The applicant argued that the withdrawal, which occurred on the eve of the hearing, breached its right to procedural fairness by preventing it from arguing for a cost-sharing condition.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, finding that the issue of procedural fairness is a question of law that should be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism requiring leave under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

In the alternative, the court found no breach of procedural fairness, as the withdrawal of the appeal was expressly contemplated by the Planning Act and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to compel private parties to enter into a cost-sharing agreement.

The appellant, a former real estate broker whose license was revoked, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his reapplication for registration.

He argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by denying his requests for a summons, an adjournment, and allegedly preventing him from recording the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in denying the irrelevant summons and the last-minute adjournment.

The court noted the appellant was explicitly granted permission to record the hearing but failed to retain a reporter, and his deliberate choice to leave the hearing meant he failed to meet his evidentiary onus.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the appellants paid out the principal and interest, and the mortgage was discharged.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the appeal was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy and declining to exercise its discretion under the Borowski test to hear the moot appeal, as there were no collateral consequences or issues of broad public importance.

The appeal was quashed with no costs awarded.

The moving party, the City of Ottawa, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $25,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered an expedited appeal process due to an administrative error that had delayed the leave motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal and a stay of an interlocutory decision that set aside an ex parte order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The court found that the moving party's underlying action was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior summary judgment decision regarding a defaulted mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and stay as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of the Brampton Appeal Tribunal upholding a Property Standards Order under the Building Code Act, 1992.

The appeal was brought before a panel of the Divisional Court.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction, as section 15.3(4) of the Act requires such appeals to be heard by a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

The matter was transferred to the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Committee of Adjustment granting his neighbour's applications for consent to sever and minor variances.

The applicant, an adjacent property owner, argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the Committee's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing to bring the judicial review, as third parties have no statutory right of appeal under the Planning Act.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant was afforded the requisite low level of procedural fairness and that the Committee's reasons were adequate.

The applicants, property owners along Erie Shore Drive, appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee regarding preliminary issues in their application for damages against the municipality for failing to maintain and repair the Burk Drainage Works.

The municipality cross-appealed the Referee's finding that section 79 of the Drainage Act is a strict liability provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Referee's findings that the applicants' initial notice was insufficient, that damages are limited to those occurring 45 days after proper notice is given, that historical seawalls had been lawfully replaced rather than abandoned, and that section 79 imposes strict liability without requiring proof of common law injurious affection.

The applicant, a mortgagee who sold a newly constructed home under power of sale, sought judicial review of Tarion's decision that it was a 'vendor' responsible for statutory warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding Tarion's finding that a mortgagee selling under power of sale is a vendor, relying on established precedent.

The court also rejected arguments that the home was sold 'as-is', noting the Act prohibits contracting out of statutory warranties, and declined to consider new arguments not raised before Tarion.

The appellant appealed a Property Standards Order requiring her to remove interior LED lighting that spilled onto her driveway and into a neighbour's home, causing a nuisance.

The City relied on the 'exterior lighting' provision of its Property Standards By-law.

The court applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and found that the by-law's exterior lighting provisions apply to any lighting that primarily or significantly impacts the exterior, regardless of the physical location of the electrical source.

The appeal was dismissed and the Order to Comply was confirmed.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a conciliation decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation, which found that 14 construction items in a condominium's common elements breached statutory warranties and that the conciliation was chargeable to the builder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld Tarion's findings.

The court found that Tarion reasonably relied on its construction performance guidelines and the Building Code in assessing the defects, including water leakage in the garage roof slab and tenting of a waterproofing membrane.

The court also upheld Tarion's determination that the conciliation was chargeable, as the builder's settlement offers did not meet the requirements for an exception.

The respondent and intervenor sought full indemnity costs of $43,706.71 following their success on an appeal brought by the appellant condominium corporation.

They argued that section 134(3) of the Condominium Act and the condominium declaration entitled them to full indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request, finding that section 134(3) applies to applications, not statutory appeals, and the declaration's indemnification provisions did not apply to an appeal of a tribunal decision.

Costs were fixed at the previously agreed partial indemnity amount of $17,500.

The appellant seller appealed a Small Claims Court decision holding her liable for $28,600 in damages for negligent misrepresentation.

During a real estate bidding process, the appellant falsely represented to the respondent buyers that she had other registered offers, inducing them to increase their bid to $1.305 million.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the other offers were mere oral puffery and not valid registered offers.

The court also upheld the trial judge's damages assessment based on the loss of chance doctrine, and awarded $3,000 in costs to the self-represented respondents for their factum disbursement.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash two Orders in Council (OICs) related to the expropriation of its lands for a transit-oriented community project.

The first OIC designated the lands as transit-oriented community land, removing the right to a hearing of necessity, while the second authorized the expropriation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, applying the Auer framework to find that both OICs were reasonably within the scope of authority delegated by the enabling legislation.

The court rejected arguments that the OICs were arbitrary, discriminatory, unnecessary, or made in bad faith.

The respondents failed to close a residential real estate transaction, and the appellants (vendors) sued for breach of contract.

At trial, the judge awarded damages based on an appraiser's assessment of fair market value rather than the actual resale price, finding the appellants failed to mitigate their damages.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by bypassing the resale price as the presumptive fair market value and by relying on expert evidence that exceeded the appraiser's qualifications regarding marketing practices.

The Court awarded damages based on the difference between the original contract price and the resale price, plus certain expenses and legal fees.

The moving party sought leave to appeal several decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a secondary plan and zoning bylaw, alleging breaches of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds did not raise questions of law of general or public importance.

The court noted that the Tribunal's procedural decisions, including limiting cross-examination and quashing summonses, fell within its statutory discretion to control its own process and did not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed appeal did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.