Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog: Real Estate
Sep
16
2026
End of Road
Lynch v. Ross Wilson Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONSC 2471
Landlord and Tenant Board granted eviction order due to substantial rent arrears. The tenant appealed, and the eviction was automatically stayed. A case management judge established interim payment terms requiring the tenant to pay ongoing rent and $1,000 monthly toward arrears to maintain a statutory stay. The tenant failed to make any payments and brought a review motion, leading the landlord to request enforcement of the eviction order. The Divisional Court dismissed the tenant’s stay motion, lifted the stay of the Landlord and Tenant Board’s eviction order, and directed immediate enforcement. The court reasoned that a statutory stay pending appeal does not exist to provide tenants with rent-free living at the landlord’s expense.
Continue Reading >Jul
06
2026
Condo Guide
DiCenzo Holdings Inc. v. Sadeghyar 2026 Ont SCJ
A builder sought forfeiture of a deposit and damages after a condominium buyer failed to close on an electronic purchase agreement. The purchaser applied for a declaration that the agreement was void because the builder failed to deliver a statutory buyer’s guide pursuant to the Condominium Act. The court dismissed the application and ordering the return of the deposit with interest. The court found as a fact that the builder failed to provide the mandated condominium buyer’s guide notwithstanding an acknowledgement from the purchaser saying he received it. The court reasoned that under the Act, an agreement is not binding until both the disclosure statement and the guide are delivered and estoppel does not apply to override strict statutory protections.
Continue Reading >Mar
20
2026
Part Performance
273 Ontario v. 238 Ontario 2025 Ont CA
The vendor sought to enforce an oral land‑sale agreement and had taken extensive steps toward closing, including preparing documents and tendering funds; the purchaser refused to close despite participating in the closing process. The trial judge found that part performance rendered the oral agreement enforceable, notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds. The Court of Appeal agreed that the vendor’s extensive closing activities amounted to detrimental reliance, satisfying both the evidentiary and equitable components of part performance.
Continue Reading >Mar
20
2026
Stay of Order
Kakoutis v. BNS 2026 Ont CA
Mortgagors sought a stay of an eviction order pending a proposed appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, following years of unsuccessful attempts to relitigate mortgage default issues. Mortgagors argued personal hardship and challenged the mortgagee’s enforcement steps while the mortgagee brought a cross‑motion to restrict further motions. The motion judge denied the stay, holding that there was no serious issue and no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the mortgagee. The judge rejected the cross‑motion, finding that the mortgagors’ conduct had not yet reached the level of frivolous or vexatious abuse.
Continue Reading >Jan
30
2026
Mortgage Enforcement
TD Bank v. Andrade 2025 Ont SCJ
Mortgagee moved for possession of mortgaged property. The occupant claimed that he was an owner; the titled owner claimed that the occupant was a squatter with no title. The judge ignored the dispute because the occupant had not paid the mortgage payments or condo fees and, even if he were a beneficial owner, he was obliged to do so. Further, the fact that the occupant claimed, without commencing an action, that the mortgagee knowingly assisted the titled owner was not a reason to disallow the mortgagee to realise on its security.
Continue Reading >Nov
04
2025
House Inspection
Miller Desjardins v JF Lajoie Construction Inc. 2025 Ont SCJ
A house inspector missed obvious patent defects, resulting in the purchasers having problematic foundation, roof, and some windows and doors. The judge held that there was no breach of contract because the purchasers’ real estate agent retained the inspector and paid his $425 fee. Although we do not agree with this finding, it does not matter; the judge held that the inspector breached his duty of care in tort to the purchasers and awarded damages of approximately $68,000.
Continue Reading >Nov
04
2025
Breach of Contract (Real Estate)
Major Weston Homes Ltd v. Li 2025 Ont SCJ
Developer’s standard form agreement included a clause that stated that the purchaser had to retain a lawyer at least 30 days before closing and, if the purchaser did not, the purchaser waived tender and was in breach of the contract. The judge enforced this provision and held that the purchaser was in breach of contract. The judge refused to allow interest on the damages at 20% per year, even though it was set out in the agreement. The judge relied on a previous decision that stated that a “surprisingly onerous interest rate” had to be brought to the purchaser’s attention.
Continue Reading >Oct
30
2025
Damages (Real Estate)
Baldwin v. Williams 2025 Ont SCJ
Purchasers breached an agreement of purchase and sale because they could not get financing after the property had fallen in value. The vendors resold the property for a loss. The court noted that the duty to mitigate only requires the plaintiff to take reasonable steps, not all possible steps, to reduce its loss. The court ordered damages for the difference in the two sale prices and extra costs that the vendor’s incurred as a result of owning the property from the date of the original closing to the date of the final closing of the resale.
Continue Reading >Oct
30
2025
Encroachment
Bachli v. McLeod 2025 Ont SCJ
Defendant’s retaining wall encroached on his neighbour’s property. Predecessors in title had entered into an encroachment agreement that allowed the encroachment for 21 years. The agreement had expired and the new neighbour wanted the encroachment gone. The court noted that the parties had not negotiated an extension or a new agreement and granted a declaration that the retaining wall was encroaching on the neighbour’s land.
Continue Reading >Sep
23
2025
Lawyer and Non-Client
Furney v. Hazan and Chhina 2025 Ont CA
Plaintiffs claimed that a mortgage broker improperly instructed its lawyer to register a collateral mortgage without plaintiffs’ consent and that the lawyer registered the collateral mortgage to block plaintiffs’ mortgage financing and was involved in the improper removal of funds from his trust account. Plaintiffs also alleged that another entity, other than the lender, was somehow involved. The Court of Appeal dismissed the action against the other entity because it was not the lender and plaintiffs pleaded nothing to demonstrate its involvement. The Court allowed the action against the lawyer to continue, even though the lawyer was not plaintiffs’ lawyer, because plaintiffs had alleged that lawyer had participated in a fraud and merely following his client’s instructions did not insulate him from liability.
Continue Reading >