Real Estate Law - SCJ

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff approximately $174,000 in damages for a failed real estate transaction, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff had served an offer to settle for $135,000 plus costs, which the defendants did not accept.

Because the final judgment was considerably more favourable than the plaintiff's offer, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 all inclusive, and prejudgment interest of $7,099.57 was also awarded.

The applicant sought to overturn an arbitrator's decision assuming jurisdiction over a business dispute between co-tenants of a real estate development project.

The parties were deadlocked on whether the project should include a hotel component.

The arbitrator found he had jurisdiction under a broad arbitration clause.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the dispute was a non-legal business decision that did not arise under the agreement, as the agreement required unanimous decision-making and did not provide a standard of review for this type of dispute.

The court set aside the arbitrator's decision, finding he lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiff and defendant, who are brothers, were involved in a long-standing dispute over access to jointly owned camp properties via a railway crossing.

The dispute culminated in a physical altercation after the defendant locked a gate to prevent the plaintiff's access.

The plaintiff sued for nuisance, assault, and battery, while the defendant counterclaimed for property damage to his ATV and unjust enrichment for road and crossing improvements.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding the nuisance was trivial and the physical injuries were either non-compensable or sustained during a consensual fight.

The defendant's counterclaims were also dismissed, as the ATV claim was barred by the Insurance Act and the unjust enrichment claims were either statute-barred or lacked merit.

The applicants sought a declaration that a right-of-way across their property, benefiting the respondents' adjacent properties, had been abandoned and extinguished.

The applicants argued that historical non-use, the disappearance of original sheds, and various obstructions demonstrated an intention to abandon the easement.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondents and their contractors had recently used the right-of-way for property renovations and that the applicants failed to prove an express or implied intention to abandon the property right.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, ex parte motion in writing for a certificate of pending litigation to be registered on the title of the home she shared with the deceased.

The plaintiff claimed an interest in the property based on a constructive trust.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that serving the estate trustee was impracticable or unnecessary, noting ongoing communications between the parties.

The motion was adjourned to be brought on notice, with an interim order preventing the estate from agreeing to a closing date for the sale of the property without consent or court order.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an urgent injunction to stop the respondents from renovating their unit and having third-party tradespeople attend the building during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondents requested an adjournment to seek legal counsel.

On consent, the court adjourned the application and ordered the respondents to allow no one to enter their unit until further order of the court, with exceptions for the external patio, yard, and government first-responders.

The applicants sought an order enforcing Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties on January 13, 2020.

The respondent's counsel had withdrawn from the file.

Due to the urgency of the matter and the suspension of regular court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court ordered immediate compliance with the Minutes of Settlement and directed the respondent to provide contact information for his real estate legal representative and file a Notice of Intention to Act in Person.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming she overpaid a private mortgage based on an alleged oral agreement to reduce the interest rate from 14% to prime plus 4% upon renewal.

The defendant estate counterclaimed for the outstanding balance at 14% interest and moved for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds as there was no written evidence of the alleged oral agreement.

The court also held that the doctrine of part performance did not apply because the plaintiff's continued mortgage payments were not unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and judgment was granted on the counterclaim.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of a home owned by the parties as tenants in common, and for an order permitting her to retrieve personal property.

The parties, who were unmarried, separated in 2018 and the respondent remained in the home.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the home, directing the respondent to vacate the property by April 30, 2020, and established a detailed procedure for listing and selling the property.

The moving defendants sought leave to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiffs to allow a corporation to grant a second mortgage to the Royal Bank of Canada.

The plaintiffs and other defendants opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the grounds for discharging the CPL did not satisfy the criteria under section 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act, nor did the equities favour the moving parties, as ownership interests remained in dispute and the proposed mortgage would dilute the plaintiffs' interests.

The defendant appealed a Master's order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim.

The proposed amendment alleged that a trust agreement concerning a residential property was void because it violated the common law Rule Against Perpetuities by failing to specify a time frame for legal title to vest.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by failing to determine if the pleading was legally tenable.

The court held that under sections 3 and 4 of the Perpetuities Act, the contingent interest was presumptively valid and subject to a 'wait and see' approach, making the plaintiffs' proposed amendment impossible of success and legally untenable.

The applicant and respondent, siblings, engaged in a dispute over their mother and sister's properties and the respondent's management as attorney for property.

Both incapable parties resided in long-term care.

The applicant sought an order for the respondent to pass her accounts and to reverse the severance of a joint tenancy, while the respondent sought to enforce a mediated settlement.

The court declined to enforce the settlement as it prejudiced the incapable parties, refused to order a passing of accounts to preserve limited funds, and ordered the sale of the properties to fund the incapable parties' ongoing care, applying the anti-ademption provisions of the Substitute Decisions Act to the proceeds.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a claim by his late mother's estate.

The estate alleged the defendant failed to pay his mother a one-third share of crop income from a farm property as required by his late father's will.

The defendant argued that when he stopped farming, he and his mother agreed she would receive one-third of the rental income instead, which she accepted for 18 years.

The court found the estate's evidence relied on inadmissible hearsay from interested beneficiaries that lacked threshold reliability and corroboration under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

The court concluded the mother had agreed to or acquiesced in the changed payment arrangement and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding the purchase of a condominium unit, arguing that the unit was purchased by a corporation rather than the plaintiffs personally.

The court dismissed the motions on two grounds.

First, the motions were brought after an inordinate and unexplained delay, contrary to rules 2.02 and 21.02.

Second, on the merits, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claims in their personal capacity as prospective purchasers and intended occupants would fail, nor was it plain and obvious that they lacked legal capacity to bring the claims.

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion to approve a marketing and sale process by tender for undeveloped commercial property.

The respondent debtor brought a competing motion seeking an order directing the Receiver to accept a specific offer from its financial backer.

The court approved the Receiver's proposed process, finding it fair, transparent, and commercially reasonable, and dismissed the debtor's motion, noting the proposed process would optimize the chances of securing the best possible price for all stakeholders.

The plaintiff brought a motion to turn a second action against his real estate agents into a third party proceeding in his main action against the vendors for a failed real estate transaction, or alternatively to consolidate the actions.

The defendants opposed, arguing the motion was premature and should wait until their summary judgment motions were heard.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that leave to issue a third party claim is mandatory unless prejudice results, and the defendants would not be prejudiced by correcting the procedural error of commencing a separate action.

The applicant, a restaurant franchisor, moved for an injunction to prevent the respondent landlord from leasing premises in the same mall to a bingo hall, arguing it violated an exclusivity clause prohibiting leases to any 'restaurant, bar or other food service business'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the bingo hall's ancillary snack bar did not make it a food service business within the meaning of the exclusivity clause.

The court held there was no serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to enforce a collateral mortgage on an Ontario property owned by the defendant wife, which secured a loan to her husband's company.

A New York court had previously found the personal guarantees valid.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined to apply issue estoppel, finding it would work an injustice.

The court held the mortgage was unenforceable because it was the product of presumed undue influence by the husband, of which the plaintiff had constructive notice, and the plaintiff failed to ensure the wife received independent legal advice.

The action was dismissed.

The applicants sought costs following the resolution of a dispute regarding the sale of a property.

The court found that the respondent's position and conduct during negotiations and litigation were unreasonable, as she failed to provide evidence or comply with procedural requirements.

The applicants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,278.16, to be paid from the respondent's share of the proceeds of the sale of the subject property.

The applicant sought a declaration that its relationship with the respondents was a landlord-tenant relationship under the Commercial Tenancies Act, allowing it to remove its equipment from the respondents' premises.

The respondents argued the relationship was a joint business venture.

The court found that the parties had entered into two separate agreements—an operating agreement and a lease—and that the arrangement lacked the requisite elements of a joint venture, such as mutual control and joint property interest.

The court declared that a commercial tenancy existed and ordered the application to be tried together with the respondents' civil action for damages.