Real Estate Law - SCJ

The applicants, a chiropractic business, sought urgent relief after receiving a Notice to Terminate their commercial lease from the respondent landlord.

The core issue was whether the applicants had validly exercised their second five-year option to renew the lease.

The court found that despite the lack of a formal lease document and some irregularities, the applicants had provided timely notice of their intent to renew, and the landlord's subsequent conduct, including rent negotiations, indicated acceptance.

The court concluded the lease was in effect and properly extended.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendants admitted to breaching the agreement of purchase and sale but argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages when he resold the property for a lower price in a falling market.

The court heard expert appraisal evidence from both parties.

The court found the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff acted unreasonably in mitigating his damages, noting the property was sold on the open market after reasonable exposure.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $111,702.58, representing the difference in sale prices plus carrying costs, less the deposit.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a commercial property after an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to close on the agreed-upon date and did not secure the required mortgage assumption.

The court found triable issues existed regarding whether time remained of the essence following multiple extensions and whether the mortgage assumption would have been approved.

Balancing the equities, the court granted the CPL, noting the property's uniqueness to the plaintiff's development plan and that damages would not be a satisfactory remedy.

Following a motion where the tenant successfully obtained relief from forfeiture and the landlord successfully obtained all rent arrears, both parties sought costs.

The landlord sought $300,000 based on partial indemnity and an unaccepted offer to settle, while the tenant sought $218,388 or that each party bear their own costs.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs, noting the divided success, the withdrawal of the landlord's offer to settle prior to the hearing, and the unique and unforeseen circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The non-parties, who occupied the subject property, brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee against the defendant mortgagor.

The non-parties relied on Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the non-parties lacked standing to rely on Rule 21.01(3) as they were not defendants in the mortgage action.

The court also declined to set aside the order granting the Writ of Possession, noting the request was not properly before the court and constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff claimed a 50% equitable interest in a real estate property based on an oral joint venture agreement, while the defendants argued the relationship was strictly that of borrower and lender secured by promissory notes and a mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the parties' relationship raised significant credibility issues that constituted a genuine issue requiring a full trial.

The applicant brought an application challenging the allegedly unauthorized transfer of an interest in his residential property to his former fiancé, creating a joint tenancy.

The applicant also sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

Following the applicant's death, his estate brought a motion for an Order to Continue the proceeding.

The court granted the Order to Continue and, on consent of the respondent, issued the CPL to preserve the property pending litigation.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside default foreclosure judgments obtained by the plaintiffs in 2014 regarding three properties.

The defendant argued he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs not to proceed with the actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's evidence of an oral agreement lacked credibility, the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, and the defendant lacked a plausible excuse for the delay or an arguable defence on the merits.

The applicant builder sought an interim injunction to prohibit the respondent statutory warranty corporation from conciliating delayed occupancy claims made by condominium purchasers.

The builder argued that the delays were caused by a municipal water supply issue and the COVID-19 pandemic, constituting an 'Unavoidable Delay', and that adverse conciliation decisions would irreparably harm its reputation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of irreparable harm and concluding that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the statutory body to carry out its mandate to protect new home buyers.

The applicants, owners of abutting properties, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a trail known as Neva Road East is their lawful property and that a municipal by-law granting ownership to the respondent township is invalid.

The township argued the trail is a municipal road established through historical dedication and acceptance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that material facts regarding actual notice, historical use, and representations made to the applicants were in dispute and could not be resolved on a summary basis.

The plaintiffs, unpaid contractors on a home building project, brought a motion in two related actions for four orders: to transfer one action from Toronto to Newmarket, to amend their statements of claim to add defendants and allege fraudulent conveyances, to register certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) on the impugned properties, and for summary judgment against the corporate builder.

The court granted the venue transfer and summary judgment on consent.

The court also granted leave to amend the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

However, the court dismissed the motion for CPLs, concluding that the plaintiffs' evidence regarding the fair market value of the properties was methodologically flawed and failed to establish a prima facie case of intent to defeat creditors.

The defendant condominium corporation brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action against it pending mediation and arbitration under the Condominium Act, 1998 and the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing that the claims against the condominium corporation were intertwined with the claims against the developer and that bifurcating the proceedings would cause duplication and inconsistent verdicts.

The court found that while bifurcation was unreasonable and risked multiplicity, recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence mandated a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, as no statutory exceptions applied.

The motion to stay was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a collateral mortgage, a share purchase agreement, and a promissory note after the defendants defaulted on payments.

The defendants argued they were entitled to a hold-back or set-off due to alleged financial misconduct by the plaintiff and claims by third-party investors.

The court found no evidence of misconduct and no contractual or legal basis for a set-off.

Summary judgment was granted, with the court applying section 4 of the Interest Act to limit the interest rate on the agreement and note to 5% annually, while enforcing the 1% monthly compound interest on the mortgage.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned home following the separation of the unmarried parties.

The respondent, who resided in the home, opposed the sale but could not offer sufficient reasons or afford to keep the property.

Applying the Partition Act and the test from Davis v. Davis, the court found no exceptional circumstances to deny the sale.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale, with the net proceeds paid into court pending resolution of the respondent's constructive trust claim.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for summary judgment for specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

A dispute had arisen over easements, leading to negotiations for an abatement.

The defendant vendor's lawyer faxed a written offer for a $20,000 abatement, which the plaintiff's lawyer accepted in writing before the deadline.

The defendant argued the offer was verbally rejected or withdrawn during a phone call.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding the offer was validly accepted in writing and never repudiated.

The court granted specific performance, finding the property unique to the plaintiff, and awarded damages for costs thrown away.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order under s. 134 of the Condominium Act to invalidate the election of the respondent to the board of directors, alleging a commercial proxy for 33 votes was improperly counted as only one vote.

The court found that the commercial proxy was not present at the annual general meeting or the recount.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the proxy had been present, it would have been invalid because it lacked the required initials beside the candidate's name, contrary to the clear instructions of the meeting chairperson.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of a rent-to-own agreement for a home on the Whitesand First Nation reserve after the First Nation allocated the home to another member.

The plaintiff had vacated the home years earlier due to an abusive relationship but continually expressed her intent to return.

The court found that the plaintiff had not abandoned the home and that the First Nation breached the agreement by failing to address her requests in good faith.

However, the court declined to order specific performance, finding it inequitable to displace the current innocent occupant and noting the plaintiff's delay.

Instead, the court awarded the plaintiff $18,000 in damages for breach of contract and $5,000 for lost personal property.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to set aside an arbitration award that dismissed its claim against the respondent unit owners for allegedly breaching a Section 98 Agreement regarding renovations.

The applicant argued the award was obtained by fraud based on new evidence from former board members.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove fraud, did not act with due diligence, and the new evidence would not have changed the outcome.

The court also denied leave to appeal, concluding the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was a question of mixed fact and law, and any legal errors would not significantly affect the parties' rights.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for partition and sale, the respondent sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant made unfounded allegations of dishonest acts against the respondent.

The court also noted the aggressive nature of the motion and the significant power imbalance between the parties.

Costs were fixed at $20,987.66.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action regarding the ownership of a rural property, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants had made an offer to settle that was more favourable than the trial outcome, entitling them to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $35,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.