Real Estate Law - SCJ

The applicant held legal title to two properties.

His parents and brothers brought a cross-application claiming beneficial ownership of the properties based on resulting trust, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment, alleging they provided the purchase funds and paid expenses.

The court dismissed the family members' claims, finding that the father had concealed his alleged assets to receive social assistance and declare bankruptcy, thereby disentitling him to equitable relief under the clean hands doctrine.

The court granted the applicant's request for exclusive possession of the residential property.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs regarding an industrial condominium unit.

The plaintiffs had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and took interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, leading to a dispute over who breached the agreement.

The court found that while the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, they established a triable issue regarding their claim for specific performance.

The court dismissed the motion to discharge the CPL but imposed strict terms requiring the plaintiffs to pay the full purchase price into court and pay all outstanding interim occupancy rent.

The appellant brought a statutory appeal from an arbitration award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act arising from the breakdown of a purchase agreement for a new build home.

At the outset of the hearing, the Divisional Court panel directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the Arbitration Act, 1991 requires leave to appeal or limits the appeal to issues of law.

The plaintiff corporation entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy a residential property from the defendants.

The defendants subsequently refused to close the transaction, breaching the agreement.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance, arguing the property was uniquely suited as a recreational compound for its principals' extended family.

The defendants argued the purchase was a commercial investment and damages were the appropriate remedy.

The court found the property had a peculiar and special value to the plaintiff and ordered specific performance.

The plaintiff corporation, acting without counsel, sued multiple defendants for fraud, breach of contract, and interference with contractual relations after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim and for security for costs.

The court set aside a noting in default against one defendant, finding the plaintiff had improperly requisitioned it.

The court struck the majority of the claims without leave to amend, finding they were frivolous, vexatious, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The breach of contract claim against the property owners was struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $150,000 in security for costs before taking any further steps.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of a commercial property, or alternatively, to hold 50% of the net proceeds of any sale in trust.

The plaintiffs claimed that a 1997 transfer of their 50% interest in the corporation owning the property was subject to an unwritten trust agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm as they were ultimately seeking monetary compensation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants due to the plaintiffs' significant delay in prosecuting the action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against three defendants involved in a mortgage fraud scheme.

The plaintiffs had provided a private mortgage loan to an individual impersonating the true property owner, and the funds were dissipated by the borrower's lawyer in breach of his undertaking.

The defendants failed to file statements of defence and were noted in default.

The court granted default judgment, finding the lawyer liable for negligence and breach of undertaking, and the other defendants liable for fraud, while awarding partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of 12 years of condominium board minutes, the examination for discovery of a non-party former director, the return of renovation deposits, and answers to refusals from a co-defendant's examination.

The court dismissed the requests against the condominium, finding the plaintiff had not met the test under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party and had not established entitlement to further minutes or deposits.

The court partially granted the refusals motion, ordering the co-defendant to answer three specific questions.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a previous judgment regarding the specific lands subject to an easement dispute, and moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant regarding its construction plans.

The defendant requested production of the plaintiff's full commercial leases.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for further documents, finding the defendant's construction plans irrelevant to whether the plaintiff has an easement.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce its full leases and clarified the geographic boundaries of the subject lands.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought possession of mortgaged premises and requested interim terms at a case conference pending the return of the main motion.

The defendants contested the court's jurisdiction to make interim orders at a scheduling case conference.

The court held that Rule 50.13(6) and Rule 1.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a judge to make interlocutory orders on terms at a case conference, provided notice is given.

The matter was adjourned to a brief hearing to determine the interim terms.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, a dispute arose regarding the amount required to discharge the second mortgage and stop the power of sale.

The applicant tendered the amount in the Notice of Sale plus interest, but the respondents demanded all legal fees incurred to date pursuant to the mortgage terms.

The court clarified that payment of the Notice of Sale amount plus interest would stop the sale, and the issue of liability for the respondents' costs would be addressed in the requested costs submissions.

The successful defendants sought their costs of the trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct throughout the litigation was egregious and reprehensible, including forging a signature and improperly registering notices on title to delay the sale of a property.

As a result of this malicious and unreasonable conduct, the court awarded the defendants their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant property owner moved under Rule 45.02 for an order requiring her co-defendant, a second mortgagee who sold the property under a power of sale, to pay a portion of the sale proceeds into court.

The moving party alleged the mortgagee breached its duties by selling the property at an improvident price.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving party claimed a right to a specific fund, she failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding the mortgagee's conduct, and the balance of convenience favoured the mortgagee given the undisputed mortgage debt.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for default judgment against the corporate tenant and its president, as personal indemnifier, after the tenant abandoned the commercial premises and defaulted on rent and arrears payments.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff was entitled to damages for rent arrears, accelerated rent, and lost future rent, without reduction for failure to mitigate, as the plaintiff's efforts to re-lease the premises were reasonable.

The court also awarded pre-judgment interest and full indemnity costs.

In a bankruptcy proposal proceeding, the fourth mortgagee brought a motion for a vesting order to purchase the debtor's property, while a competing purchaser brought a cross-motion to set aside a previous vesting order on the basis of lack of notice.

The court found that the competing purchaser had been unfairly deprived of notice and the opportunity to participate in the hearing.

The court terminated all previous agreements of purchase and sale and ordered a new confidential bidding process to ensure fairness.

The applicant and respondents were business partners who co-owned a property.

The applicant defaulted on a second mortgage, which was subsequently assigned to a corporation owned by one of the respondents.

The corporation initiated power of sale proceedings.

The applicant sought an urgent injunction to stay the sale, arguing he was owed money from other business ventures and wanted an accounting before paying the mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant admitted the debt, failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for an injunction, and could not use section 12 of the Mortgages Act to achieve Mareva-type relief.

The plaintiff, a commercial real estate broker, arranged mortgage refinancing for the defendant's property while employed at a brokerage.

After the plaintiff left his employment, he continued to provide services to the defendant to finalize the refinancing, but the defendant never signed a proposed letter of direction setting out the plaintiff's fee.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the breach of contract claim because the parties never agreed on a price.

However, the court allowed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the defendant received a benefit from the plaintiff's ongoing consulting services without a juristic reason.

The plaintiff was awarded $65,000 in quantum meruit, based on the defendant's own valuation of the services.

The plaintiff, a real estate developer, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser who failed to close a real estate transaction.

After the defendant failed to file responding materials as ordered, the court struck the statement of defence and treated the matter as an in-writing motion for default judgment.

The court found the plaintiff proved its claim for breach of contract and awarded damages for the loss of the bargain and consequential carrying costs.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sought commission from the corporate defendants after an initial agreement of purchase and sale was terminated during the due diligence period, and a subsequent agreement was entered into by a different corporate entity.

The court held a mini-trial to determine the ownership of the corporations, the intentionality of terminating the first agreement, and the circumstances of the second agreement.

The court found that the two corporations were separate legal entities with different investors, the first agreement was terminated legitimately due to unsatisfactory due diligence, and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default, default judgment, and leave to issue a writ of possession arising from a defaulted second mortgage.

The defendant argued she was waiting for particulars and relying on a companion action against a third party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant had ample notice of enforcement proceedings, failed to act promptly, and presented no arguable defence on the merits.