Real Estate Law - SCJ

The applicants were successful in their application for the partition and sale of an investment property.

They sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the costs claimed, noted duplication and excessive hours, and reduced the fees by 30%.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought an action against the estate of a deceased family friend, claiming sole beneficial ownership of two properties and seeking repayment of loans evidenced by promissory notes.

The estate claimed a 50% interest in one of the properties, Bowan Court, arguing it was intended as a matrimonial home for the deceased and the plaintiff's daughter.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims regarding the first property and the loans due to pleading deficiencies and lack of corroboration.

However, the court granted the plaintiff's claim for sole ownership of Bowan Court, finding no evidence of a common intention or unjust enrichment to support the estate's trust claims, and ordered the deceased's 1% interest removed from title.

The plaintiffs entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a builder to construct a home on a lot.

The builder was not the registered owner of the lot, but had a development agreement to purchase it from the registered owners.

After the builder abandoned the project, the plaintiffs terminated their agreement and registered a purchaser's lien against the property to secure their deposit.

The registered owners brought a motion to determine if the lien was properly registered.

The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to register the lien because they did not have a contract with the registered owners, and their agreement with the builder expressly provided that no interest in land was created until certain conditions were met.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) sought a confidentiality order to prevent the disclosure of certain commercial information in an upcoming summary trial regarding a terminated commercial lease.

The moving party relied on a confidentiality provision in the lease agreement.

The court applied the Sherman Estate test and interpreted the lease's confidentiality clause, finding that the clause explicitly exempted litigation between the parties.

Without an applicable confidentiality clause, the moving party failed to establish an important commercial interest that outweighed the public interest in open courts.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants, owners of adjacent waterfront cottages, sought a declaration of communal adverse possession over a parcel of land separating their properties from the Ottawa River.

The disputed land had been purchased by the respondents following a municipal tax sale.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that Ontario law does not recognize a communal claim for adverse possession where the claimants only used discrete portions of the land rather than possessing the whole in common.

The court also rejected the applicants' challenge to the respondents' legal title, finding the paralegal's affidavit on title issues inadmissible as expert opinion.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it was in compliance with its commercial lease and sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord alleged the tenant breached the lease by subletting to towing companies and leaving debris outside the premises.

The court found no evidence of a sublease, noting the tenant merely allowed related towing companies to temporarily park vehicles.

The court also held the landlord's Notice of Termination was deficient under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act for lacking specificity.

The lease was declared to remain in full force and effect, and the landlord was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs due to sharp practices.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to evict the respondent from his unit under section 134 of the Condominium Act, citing past erratic behaviour and a fire incident for which the respondent pleaded guilty to arson by negligence.

The respondent, who suffers from mental health issues, provided evidence that the fire was caused by faulty wiring and that his condition had stabilized with new medication.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of an ongoing risk of harm to justify permanent eviction, without prejudice to the applicant reviving the application if warranted.

The plaintiffs brought a post-trial motion to compel the defendants to cooperate in executing the sale and property management issues directed in a previous judgment, which found the plaintiffs to be 50% beneficial owners of the subject property.

At the hearing, the parties agreed on the form of the formal judgment and the mechanics for listing the property, managing it in the interim, and handling rental income.

The court ordered the defendants to cooperate with the plaintiffs in selling the property and to pay rents into court or trust, less agreed-upon expenses, with an order going as submitted by mutual agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to find the defendant, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, in civil contempt of two prior court orders regarding a disputed family home.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of constructive trust, resulting trust, and abuse.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the specific terms of the first order due to illiteracy in English and her former counsel's failure to inform her, and declined to exercise its discretion to find contempt on the second order.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, concluding that the intertwined issues of property ownership, alleged gifts, and historical abuse presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) to sell a real estate development property to a third-party purchaser.

A second mortgagee and joint venture participant brought a cross-motion to redeem the property or, alternatively, for approval of its credit bid.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that allowing a redemption after a court-approved sale process had concluded would undermine the integrity of the process.

The court granted the receiver's motion, holding that the proposed sale satisfied the Soundair principles, as the receiver acted providently, considered all stakeholders' interests, and conducted a fair and commercially efficacious process.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $13,736.49 on a full indemnity basis following a motion brought by the defendants regarding a power of sale and mortgage redemption.

The defendants had achieved partial success on the motion, securing a reimbursement of $11,700 for excess charges, but their claims of illegal possession were dismissed.

The court found that while the plaintiffs were contractually entitled to full indemnity costs for collection efforts, the divided success warranted a reduction.

The defendants were ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, an elderly widow acting through her litigation guardian, sought to evict her son from her property so she could sell it to fund her long-term care.

The son claimed they had formed an oral contract in 2010 for him to purchase the property and counterclaimed for an interest in the land or unjust enrichment for renovations.

The court found no enforceable contract existed as essential terms were never agreed upon, and the son's actions did not constitute part performance under the Statute of Frauds.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the son's rent-free living offset any contributions.

The son was ordered to vacate the property.

The plaintiff brought an action for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The parties had negotiated the terms over several months and signed the agreement, along with a side letter allowing the defendant's lawyer 48 hours to review the legal wording.

The defendant subsequently attempted to renegotiate the business terms and ultimately repudiated the agreement when the property's value increased.

The court found that a binding agreement had been reached and that the side letter did not permit renegotiation of business terms.

Because the property was uniquely suited to the plaintiff's business needs and damages would be inadequate, the court ordered specific performance.

The plaintiff sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property purchased by one of the corporate defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that funds owed to it for unpaid meat supplies were diverted by the debtor corporation's directors to fund the property purchase, claiming a constructive trust and tracing remedy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff was essentially an unsecured creditor seeking to secure a debt rather than asserting a genuine interest in land, and that other remedies were available.

The applicant condominium corporation sought relief under sections 113 and 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging that the respondent declarant failed to adequately disclose the provisions of a Shared Amenities Agreement (SAA) and that the SAA's operation was oppressive.

The court found that while the declarant failed to disclose that future phases of the development would not proceed, the applicant did not prove this non-disclosure produced an oppressive or unconscionably prejudicial result.

The court dismissed the oppression claims, noting the applicant had withheld its share of expenses for over five years and should utilize the SAA's arbitration mechanism to resolve its operational disputes.

The applicants sought a declaration that they validly terminated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for commercial property.

The agreement included a termination option if the respondent failed to complete a pre-consultation meeting with the municipality within four weeks of signing.

The respondent argued a meeting held prior to signing satisfied the condition and sought to convert the application into an action.

The court held the matter could proceed by application as it involved contract interpretation, found the prior meeting did not satisfy the condition, and declared the agreement validly terminated.

The plaintiff/appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision refusing to grant a writ of possession for a residential property.

The respondent spouse, who was not on title but claimed rights under the Family Law Act, argued that ongoing enforcement proceedings regarding a second mortgage prevented her from redeeming the first mortgage.

The Superior Court found that the Associate Justice made a palpable and overriding error by conflating the first and second mortgages.

The court held that the spouse had received adequate notice and opportunity to redeem but failed to do so, and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession.

Following a judgment that reduced the amount claimed on a mortgage by $38,000, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought full indemnity costs of $22,851.46 based on standard charge terms, while the defendants sought their costs.

The court exercised its discretion to deny costs to the successful plaintiff, finding that the litigation was caused by the plaintiff's failure to properly document mortgage advances and its improper addition of third-party rent to the mortgage.

No order as to costs was made.

Following a summary judgment decision where the plaintiff was declared the beneficial owner of a disputed property, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for partial indemnity costs apportioned against the plaintiff due to divided success.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially more successful, having achieved his primary goals of retaining the family home and avoiding capital gains tax indemnification.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $25,988, discounted slightly for his unsuccessful punitive damages claim.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action for solicitor negligence against the defendant lawyer and his firm, alleging they owed and breached duties to the plaintiff in relation to a 2010 real estate transaction, causing the plaintiff to lose financing it had extended.

The transaction involved mortgage fraud perpetrated by the purchaser and his partner.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant lawyer did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, either through a solicitor-client relationship or as an exceptional duty to a non-client third party, as there was no retainer, no instructions, and no reasonable reliance by the plaintiff on the lawyer.