Real Estate Law - ODC

The appellant appealed a decision restoring a restrictive covenant and Notice of Claim on her property.

The property was originally under the Registry Act, where a 1958 restrictive covenant was extended to 2038 by a 1998 Notice of Claim.

In 2003, the property was converted to the Land Titles system.

The appellant argued that under s. 119(9) of the Land Titles Act, the covenant was deemed to expire 40 years after its original 1958 registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conversion to Land Titles did not extinguish the rights preserved by the Notice of Claim under the Registry Act, and the covenant remains valid until 2038.

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.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,972.66.

The applicant, a residents' association, sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to grant a heritage permit to a property owner (the intervenor) for the construction of a new house in a designated heritage conservation district.

The applicant argued the proposed house was too large and violated the mandatory mass and height guidelines of the District Plan, and that it was denied procedural fairness because it was not invited to appear before City Council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the City's interpretation of the District Plan was reasonable and that the applicant had been afforded extensive procedural fairness during the committee stages, exceeding the requirements of the statutory scheme.

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent vacant possession of a co-ownership unit and the right to dispose of the appellant's interest to satisfy over $110,000 in unpaid damages and costs from a prior proceeding.

After a motion for a stay pending appeal was dismissed for lacking a serious issue to be tried, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant failed to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack on orders made in the previous application.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order refusing to continue a stay of enforcement of a mortgage and writ of possession.

The applicant had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal but was directed to the Divisional Court.

The court granted an extension of time to file the motion for leave to appeal, as the respondent took no position.

The court declined to grant a stay pending the leave motion, noting it was premature as the respondent was still waiting to renew the writ of possession, but provided directions on how the applicant could seek an injunction if eviction became imminent.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order denying her request to adjourn a summary judgment motion brought by the respondents regarding an improvident realization claim.

The respondents requested a case conference to expedite the leave motion so as not to lose their summary judgment date.

The applicant, self-represented, declined to expedite the process and raised a conflict of interest concern regarding the case management judge.

The judge declined to take any steps at the case conference, noting the applicant bears the risk that her leave motion may become moot if summary judgment is granted.

The self-represented appellants appealed an Associate Justice's order refusing leave to amend their statement of claim in a property dispute concerning air rights and exhaust vents.

The Divisional Court upheld the refusal to add a new corporate plaintiff due to the expiry of the limitation period.

However, the court found the Associate Justice made palpable and overriding errors in refusing amendments related to windows, a venting system, and specific heads of damages, as these were not new causes of action and caused no non-compensable prejudice.

The appeal was allowed in part, permitting the amendments subject to the respondent's right to conduct further discovery at the appellants' expense.

The appellant tenant appealed an order of the Condominium Authority Tribunal holding him jointly and severally liable with his landlord to pay $18,239.60 in compensation to the condominium corporation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding a breach of procedural fairness because the corporation had not requested this relief against the tenant and the Tribunal's procedural order did not list it as an issue.

The Tribunal's order was varied to make the landlord solely liable for the compensation.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision finding he breached a settlement agreement regarding excessive noise.

On appeal, the appellant argued the CAT provided inadequate reasons for dismissing his defence that the condominium corporation harassed him, and erred in awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the CAT correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the harassment claims under s. 117(1) of the Condominium Act, and that the discretionary costs award revealed no error in principle.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding compensation for the expropriation of contaminated land.

The Tribunal had determined the property's market value to be $290,000 based on a speculative value, rejecting the appellant's higher valuation due to prohibitive environmental remediation costs.

The Tribunal also awarded $51,683 for wasted costs.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's factual findings regarding market value and wasted costs.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that it was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal refused an interlocutory motion for third-party document production.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding four requests for condominium records under section 55 of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to identify any error of law, as required by section 1.46(2) of the Act, and instead challenged findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that there was no refusal to provide records without reasonable excuse and awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,500 to the respondent.

The appellant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a property and paid a $40,000 deposit.

The transaction failed to close because the appellant could not secure financing.

The appellant sought the return of the deposit, arguing there was an oral agreement that it would be refunded if the sale failed.

The application judge dismissed the application, applying the parol evidence rule to exclude the oral agreement and finding no grounds for relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the written contract governed and that the deposit forfeiture was not unconscionable.

The parties, former spouses, owned an apartment building as joint tenants.

Their divorce agreement gave the appellant a right of first refusal to buy out the respondent's interest, contingent on securing financing and escrowing funds for tax liability.

The appellant failed to exercise this right within the 90-day deadline due to a disagreement over the tax calculation.

The respondent successfully applied for the sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the judge misapprehended the dispute as a partition matter rather than a contract dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law and confirming the appellant's right of first refusal had lapsed.

The appellant, a real estate agent, appealed the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action against two brokerages for unpaid commissions.

The appellant had submitted a conditional offer on behalf of clients that was not accepted by the vendors, and subsequently sued for the cooperating broker's commission.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that a conditional offer does not create a binding contract and the vendors had no obligation to accept it.

The court also rejected the appellant's claims of bias against the trial judge and upheld the trial costs awards.

The moving party condominium corporation sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) regarding an accessible parking space dispute.

The corporation had initially brought an application for judicial review, which was dismissed for being the incorrect route, causing a delay in filing the appeal.

The Divisional Court applied the test for extending time to appeal, finding that the corporation had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by counsel's error in choosing the appeal route, there was no significant prejudice to the respondent, and the proposed appeal had sufficient merit.

The motion to extend time to appeal was granted.

The parties brought a statutory appeal and cross-appeal from an arbitrator's award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to address whether leave to appeal was required as a preliminary issue.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Arbitration Act applied because the Tarion Addendum constituted an arbitration agreement that did not specify appeal rights.

Consequently, leave to appeal was required and the appeal was strictly limited to questions of law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal ordering him to remove a structure, originally gym equipment, from his balcony.

The Tribunal found the structure was not 'seasonal furniture' permitted under the condominium rules.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence by ignoring dictionary definitions and erred by relying on a Google search not in evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and no error of law, as the appellant had not objected to the Google search at the hearing.

The moving party sought an interim stay of a decision that ended an ex parte interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with a mortgage, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying dispute involved a property development and a contest over the ownership of the moving party corporation.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the motion for leave to appeal was weak, there was no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favor extending the injunction.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,898.45.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Halton Region Conservation Authority to void a development permit for a home renovation.

After the partial collapse of walls during construction, the Authority voided the permit without notice or a hearing, claiming the scope of work had fundamentally changed.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding it both unreasonable and procedurally unfair because the Authority failed to follow the mandatory show cause hearing process set out in section 8 of O. Reg. 162/06.