Real Estate Law - ONSCDC

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 fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision ordering the removal of a dog and finding violations of parking rules.

The appellant argued the CAT misapprehended evidence regarding a service dog exemption and raised new arguments including equitable estoppel and bad faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the CAT's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence, and declined to entertain arguments not raised before the tribunal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed her motion to set aside a prior consent dismissal order.

The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant could not appeal a consent order without leave under s. 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Furthermore, the order dismissing the motion to set aside the consent order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore could not be appealed to the Divisional Court under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was quashed without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, which upheld a discipline finding that she breached the Code of Ethics by failing to disclose a competing offer and a multiple representation situation.

The applicant argued she made the disclosure but the timing was unfortunate, and that the committee unreasonably found she was motivated by greed.

The Divisional Court found the underlying facts straightforward and the decision reasonable as to both liability and penalty, noting that even if her motives were to appease her client rather than financial gain, she was required to follow the Code of Ethics.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order for the partition and sale of a home jointly owned with her elderly mother.

The appellant argued the mother had gifted her interest in the home and that the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court held that an order for sale under the Partition Act is a final order, meaning no leave was required.

On the merits, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the mother retained an interest in the property and that the sale was not oppressive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to appeal a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the Courts of Justice Act, as the order appealed from was final and should have been directed to the Court of Appeal.

Alternatively, the court found the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious on its face, as it sought to relitigate matters already adjudicated in prior proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision that allowed the respondent unitholder to park in designated accessible parking spaces and awarded him $1,500 in damages.

The appellant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parking dispute was connected to broader harassment claims falling under the section 117 carveout of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parking issue was severable and within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the unitholder was entitled to use the accessible spaces, the condominium could not charge back its enforcement costs, and the damages award was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the respondent's vexatious conduct during the hearing.

The appellant municipality appealed a Drainage Referee's order denying it costs and sought a declaration that a referee who conducts a pre-hearing cannot preside at the hearing.

The respondent landowners cross-appealed the Referee's finding that a proposed drainage project was an 'improvement' under the Drainage Act rather than a new drainage works requiring a petition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the costs award and holding that a declaration was unnecessary given existing rules.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the Referee correctly distinguished prior case law and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the project was an improvement despite an increase in capacity.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under the Partition Act for the sale of a property registered solely in the respondent's name.

The application judge had dismissed the claim, finding on a paper record that the funds advanced by the appellant were a loan, not an investment giving rise to a trust interest.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in law by assessing credibility on material facts in dispute without directing a trial to hear viva voce evidence.

The judgment was set aside and a trial of the whole application was ordered.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three decisions of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) regarding a lot severance and zoning variances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that most of the proposed issues were questions of mixed fact and law.

The one potential question of law regarding the interpretation of s. 51(24) of the Planning Act did not raise good reason to doubt the correctness of the TLAB's decision.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondent property owner, but no costs were awarded to the TLAB, which had unnecessarily participated in the motion contrary to a case management direction.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that upheld an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning approved by the City of Ottawa.

The amendments permitted the development of a warehouse and e-commerce centre on lands adjacent to Highway 416.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no extricable error of law of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The appellant appealed an arbitration and cost award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court raised preliminary questions regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether leave to appeal was required under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court adjourned the hearing and directed the parties to provide written submissions on these jurisdictional issues.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a boundary fence dispute.

The appellant argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because the Line Fences Act governed such disputes.

The Divisional Court noted that while the City of Toronto purported to opt out of the Line Fences Act, its bylaw did not establish an alternative scheme for apportioning costs as required by the Act.

The court adjourned the matter and directed that notice be given to the City of Toronto to provide written submissions on the effectiveness of its opt-out bylaw.

The appellant appealed an application judge's order requiring it to vacate a gas bar premises.

The application judge had found a month-to-month commercial tenancy existed and ordered vacant possession.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the application judge erred by resolving disputed material facts regarding whether the appellant had an ownership interest in the property rather than a tenancy.

The appeal was allowed and the application was converted to an action to proceed to trial.

The appellants appealed an order directing the sale of a jointly owned property rather than its partition.

Following the commencement of the appeal, the appellants sold their interest in the property to the respondent for $3,900,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the issues raised were not elusive of review and did not warrant the expenditure of judicial resources.

The appellant property manager appealed an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to strike a third party claim brought by the respondent developers.

The respondents sought contribution and indemnity from the appellant for alleged construction deficiencies and maintenance failures at a condominium.

The appellant argued the third party claim should be struck because the respondents did not assert an independent cause of action against it.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a defendant does not need an independent cause of action against a third party to bring a claim under the Negligence Act, provided the defendant is exposed to joint and several liability for damages caused to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles determining the easterly and westerly boundary lines of his property and dismissing his request for costs.

The appellant argued the Deputy Director erred by rejecting surveyor evidence that a cedar hedge and a frame structure established the boundaries through possession.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Deputy Director reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence to relate the physical occupation back to the original survey.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to one of the respondents.

The appellant real estate agent appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $4,920 for breaching an agreement to rebate 1% of his commission to the respondent purchaser.

The appellant argued he signed the agreement under duress and undue influence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings, which supported the conclusion that the appellant had choices and was not under duress.

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 an order dismissing its motion for judgment on an alleged settlement.

The respondent's counsel had made a settlement offer based on instructions from an individual who managed the recreation centre but lacked authority to settle the litigation.

The appellant accepted the offer.

The motion judge found that the settlement was concluded by mistake, as the respondent never authorized the offer, and exercised his discretion not to enforce it.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's appreciation of the evidence or application of the legal principles regarding mistake and agency.