Real Estate Law - ODC

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to revoke a real estate broker's registration, instead imposing conditions.

The broker had been involved in transactions where properties were flipped at inflated prices, facilitating mortgage fraud, though the Tribunal found he lacked actual knowledge of the fraud.

The Divisional Court majority dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably assessed the broker's past conduct, including mitigating factors, and appropriately applied the balance of probabilities standard.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof and failed to properly apply the statutory test for registration entitlement.

The City of Windsor appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding compensation to landowners for expropriated property.

The City argued the Board erred by ignoring the land's natural features and provincial policy statements when determining market value, and by improperly assessing injurious affection and interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions on the scope of the expropriation scheme, the highest and best use of the land, and the appropriate comparators were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel affirming his disbarment for professional misconduct.

The Hearing Panel found he knowingly participated in a dishonest scheme to obtain mortgage funds by being reckless and willfully blind to fraudulent real estate transactions.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found no error in the panels' conclusions regarding misconduct or the penalty of disbarment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review for a declaration that the Ministry of Transportation unreasonably withheld a clearance letter for a subdivision development.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that the Ministry was still actively reviewing the engineering drawings.

The Court further held that the appropriate forum to address difficulties in implementing draft plan approval conditions is the Ontario Municipal Board, which retained jurisdiction over the matter.

The appellant operated a residential care facility.

Following a failed unannounced fire drill, the Chief Building Official issued orders under s. 15.9 of the Building Code Act declaring the building unsafe and immediately prohibiting its use and occupancy, forcing the evacuation of 20 residents.

The appellant appealed, arguing the official had no authority under s. 15.9 to order immediate evacuation without providing time for remediation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders, finding that s. 15.9 requires a property owner be given a reasonable time to take remedial steps before an occupancy prohibition can be issued, distinguishing it from the emergency powers in s. 15.10.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a residential development that would allegedly interfere with the public's view of the Legislative Building.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for leave to appeal and found that while the proposed appeal raised a question of law, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision regarding the interpretation of the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to vary an order refusing leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Board had dismissed an appeal regarding minor variances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge applied the correct test and did not decline jurisdiction.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but declined to order substantial indemnity costs despite the moving party's unfounded allegations of false evidence.

The City of Toronto appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision finding that Home Depot's application to develop a major retail store in an Employment Area did not constitute a 'conversion' under the Growth Plan.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the Board's interpretation of planning documents is reasonableness.

The Court found the Board's conclusion—that major retail use was already contemplated in the Official Plan and thus not a conversion—was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 real estate agency appealed a Master's decision refusing leave to amend its statement of claim to add a claim for constructive trust based on unjust enrichment for an unpaid commission.

The appellant sought a constructive trust over $173,840 of the purchase funds deposited in a solicitor's trust account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the relationship between a vendor and a real estate agent is that of debtor and creditor, not a trust relationship.

The pleadings failed to establish a nexus between the services rendered and the property, or that a monetary remedy would be inadequate.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to order a joint board under the Consolidated Hearings Act (CHA) for a proposed golf course and residential development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to order a joint board because the potential hearings under the Ontario Water Resources Act were exempt under the applicable regulations.

Furthermore, the Court found that the OMB had the discretion under s. 24(2) of the CHA to refuse to order a joint board and made no error in exercising that discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board decisions ordering the issuance of demolition permits for thirteen buildings.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the respondents filed their appeal after the time limit in section 3 of the City of Toronto Act, 1985 had expired.

The Board had found this time limit conflicted with the Planning Act and assumed jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court found reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdictional decision, holding that the two statutes could co-exist without conflict.

However, the Court found no reason to doubt the Board's decision on the merits.

Leave to appeal was granted solely on the jurisdictional question.

The appellants appealed the imposition of two conditions on an order for the partition and sale of a commercial property, while the respondents cross-appealed seeking to reverse the order for sale.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of co-ownership but set aside the condition requiring the prior payment of $1 million, finding that conflicting evidence regarding payment required a trial.

The court held that the sale could not proceed until the issues of payment and alleged oppression were resolved at trial.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part.

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 moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board and a subsequent Amending Order regarding their application for minor variances to a zoning by-law.

The moving parties had built a two-storey addition without a building permit and sought variances to approve it.

At the Board hearing, the moving parties raised procedural issues, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and then left the hearing before evidence was called.

The Board proceeded in their absence and dismissed the appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no jurisdictional error, error of law, or denial of procedural fairness by the Board.

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 moving party municipality sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of its motions for summary judgment and determination of a question of law.

The underlying action involved claims of misfeasance and negligence related to the closing of zoning applications.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the municipality was immune from suit under s. 20(1)(a) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, finding there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and that the issue was of general importance.

Leave to appeal on the limitation period issue was denied.

The 86-year-old appellant appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a noting in default in an action for specific performance of a real estate transaction.

The appellant had entered into an unsolicited agreement to sell her home but immediately retained counsel to contest its validity.

Due to her counsel's inadvertence, a statement of defence was not filed.

The respondent's counsel noted her in default without warning, waiting six months to notify her counsel.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master made palpable and overriding errors by ignoring the overriding principle of resolving disputes on their merits and by failing to consider the sharp practice of the respondent's counsel.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the City of Toronto appealed an interim decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessments of several large office complexes.

The Board had accepted the property owners' argument that the properties should be valued as if vacant, treating all leases as encumbrances under the definition of 'current value' and 'fee simple, if unencumbered' in the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's interpretation was incorrect in law.

The Court found that a leasehold interest is an interest in land for assessment purposes, and the whole of the land must be assessed by valuing the totality of interests, including the value of leases in place, rather than just the owner's interest.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of an Ontario Municipal Board Review Panel that ordered a rehearing of a property severance application.

The original Board had denied the severance due to concerns about water quality and phosphorous levels in Lake Waseosa.

The Review Panel ordered a rehearing, finding the original Board applied the wrong standard and failed to properly apply the precautionary principle.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on three questions of law: whether the OMB's Rules apply to a s. 43 Review Panel decision, whether the Review Panel erred in finding the original Board applied the wrong test, and whether the Review Panel erred regarding the precautionary principle.