Real Estate Law - ONCA

The appeal concerned interpretation of a land development agreement containing a purchase price adjustment clause tied to non-developable acreage and secured by a vendor take-back mortgage.

The application judge treated the fifth anniversary in the clause as a hard deadline, with time of the essence, and held the purchaser lost any right to a price reduction by failing to trigger the process by that date.

The Court of Appeal held that interpretation was commercially unreasonable and inconsistent with the agreement’s structure, the consultant-based determination mechanism, and the surrounding development context.

The fifth anniversary operated as an 'as of' valuation date for measuring non-developable land, not as a limitation-like deadline.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment below set aside, and the purchaser was declared entitled to a price reduction to be determined under the agreement.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that its accounting records were insufficient to prove expenses properly chargeable to the respondent tenant as Additional Rent under a commercial lease.

The application judge had previously ruled that the lease did not require the tenant to pay standardized management fees, but allowed the landlord a second hearing to prove actual expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the landlord's materials were insufficient.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting the landlord's failure to respond to settlement offers and its role in prolonging the proceeding.

The appellant worked on his family's dairy farm for 24 years, alleging an oral agreement with his parents that he would receive the farm property and assets when they stopped farming.

After his father died without transferring the farm or changing his will, the appellant brought an action for a declaration of beneficial entitlement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no oral agreement due to the lack of signed documents and rejecting the application of the doctrine of part performance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by requiring written documents for an oral agreement and by incorrectly applying the doctrine of part performance.

A new trial was ordered on all issues.

The respondents purchased property formerly used as a municipal dump and sued the appellant municipality for negligence after discovering contamination.

The trial judge awarded damages for additional construction costs and stigma.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, finding that the causal link was broken when the respondents rejected an offer to reverse the sale and chose to proceed with construction despite knowing the site was contaminated and would require significant remediation.

The tenant of a commercial lease remained in the premises after the expiration of the term, relying on an overholding clause that stated the tenancy would become month-to-month if the tenant continued to occupy without further written agreement.

The landlord, who had secured a new tenant and demanded vacant possession, locked the tenant out.

The application judge found the tenant was validly overholding.

The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that an overholding clause requires the landlord's consent (usually evidenced by acceptance of rent) to create a month-to-month tenancy, and does not grant the tenant a unilateral right to remain.

The appellant sought costs as the successful party on appeal, while the respondents sought costs relying on s. 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 32(1) applies to the Ontario Municipal Board, not the court, and is triggered only when the Board has made an order awarding at least 85% of the offered amount.

Since the Board's order was set aside, s. 32(1) did not apply at this stage.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $108,000 for the Divisional Court appeal and $45,000 for the Court of Appeal proceedings.

However, the court directed that the costs are not payable until the matter is finally resolved by the Board.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the existence of a commission agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of a written commission agreement, the interpretation of email correspondence to determine if an agreement existed was a matter for the motion judge.

Finding no palpable and overriding error, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to add four defendants to an action claiming damages from improper foreclosure orders.

The motion judge found the claims against the proposed defendants were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period, as the appellants knew or ought to have known of their involvement well before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that a ten-year limitation period applied or that the doctrine of special circumstances permitted adding the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Registrar appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Licence Appeal Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had revoked the registration of a real estate brokerage due to its involvement in mortgage fraud transactions, but allowed the principal broker to retain his registration subject to conditions.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal erred in its application of the test for revocation under section 10 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, applied an incorrect standard of proof, and made erroneous findings of fact regarding the broker's knowledge of the fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's reasons were sufficient, it did not apply a quasi-criminal standard of proof, and it was open to the Tribunal to find the broker's past conduct did not warrant revocation despite findings of wilful blindness.

The appellant appealed an order granting his mother, the titled owner, leave to issue a writ of possession requiring him to vacate her home.

The appellant claimed an interest in the home via constructive trust based on oral promises and work he performed, but he had not commenced a counter-application or action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the only issue before the court was the title holder's right to possession, making the appellant's constructive trust evidence irrelevant to the application.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the order under appeal was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the lower court's order did not terminate the responding party's rights to seek injunctive relief or to have a notice of sale declared invalid.

As the order was interlocutory, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action to discharge a debenture registered against their land.

The trial judge had found that while the ten-year limitation period under the Limitations Act had expired, equitable considerations prevented the appellants from succeeding.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by deciding the case on equitable grounds that were neither pleaded nor argued.

Furthermore, the Court held that equitable considerations cannot trump the clear statutory language of sections 4 and 15 of the Limitations Act, which extinguish the right and title to land after ten years.

The debenture was ordered discharged.

The appellant was convicted of breaching s. 31(2) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

He was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution to the vendor of the relevant property.

The appellant appealed the restitution order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the restitution order, holding that a finding of loss is a necessary precondition to imposing a restitution order, and the evidentiary record did not establish that the vendor suffered a loss.

The appellant real estate agent sued the respondent vendor for unpaid commission and brought a motion under Rule 45.02 to have the proceeds of the sale, held in trust by the vendor's solicitor, paid into court pending trial.

The master granted the motion, but the Divisional Court allowed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, clarifying that while Rule 45.02 does not require a plaintiff to claim a proprietary right to a specific fund, the plaintiff must claim a legal right to the fund.

Because the appellant's claim was for damages for breach of contract rather than a legal right to the specific trust funds, the test for payment into court was not met.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding a property dispute over waterfront access.

At the outset of the trial, the trial judge disclosed that his wife was a real estate agent specializing in waterfront properties in the area and had clients connected to the dispute, but he declined the appellant's request to recuse himself.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's wife's deep and multi-layered connections to the properties and witnesses created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed her application to vacate a condominium lien for water damage repairs and granted the condominium corporation's application to enforce a single-family use restriction and order the removal of interior door locks.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence that the leak originated in the appellant's unit and that the occupancy and locks violated the condominium's Declaration.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence and upheld the application judge's full indemnity costs award.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that she and her husband fraudulently conveyed their matrimonial home to her alone to defeat creditors.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the husband had acquired a beneficial interest when the property was previously transferred into joint names to secure a mortgage, and that the subsequent reconveyance to the appellant alone was intended to defeat creditors.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding interest, reducing the rate from 1% per month to the Courts of Justice Act rate of 3.3% per annum, and changing the start date.

The moving party sought to review an order of Doherty J.A. that denied an extension of time to appeal an order refusing to set aside a default judgment for the sale of mortgaged property.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the previous decision, noting the moving party had not moved promptly after learning of the default judgment and the property had already been sold.

The motion to review was dismissed with costs.

The appellants' farm property was expropriated by the respondent, and the parties settled compensation at $1.3 million, with costs to be assessed under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act.

An assessment officer awarded costs, but a Superior Court Justice reduced the amounts on appeal, finding them unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Superior Court Justice erred by conducting a rehearing and substituting her own view of what was reasonable instead of applying the proper deferential standard of review.

The assessment officer's awards were reinstated.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment to the respondent on a guarantee of a second commercial mortgage.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding he waived his right to raise deficiencies in the respondent's prior enforcement attempts and in concluding there were no genuine issues for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant waived any prior deficiencies by signing a forbearance agreement, which was subsequently breached.

The Court also found the appellant's evidence of an alleged oral forbearance agreement with the first mortgagee consisted of bald assertions unsupported by documentary evidence, raising no genuine issue for trial.