Author: Nick Tenev

Torres v. Parsons et al., 2025 ONSC 4593 Real estate transactional lawyers should take note of this Ontario Superior Court decision.   It underscores the critical importance of documenting property ownership arrangements in writing, particularly in family or relationship contexts where tenants in common claim that their ownership share is greater than what was recorded on title. Background Peter Torres purchased a property in Brampton in 2018 for $822,000, putting down $450,000 (approximately 55% of the purchase price). While Torres held 99% of the title, his fiancée’s parents, Shawn and Charmaine Parsons, held the remaining 1%. The Parsons were added…

The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in De Miranda et al. v. James Vincent King (2025 ONSC 4624) serves as an important reminder to real estate practitioners about the evidentiary requirements needed to resolve beneficial ownership disputes on summary judgment. This case involved a family dispute over a Hamilton property and illustrates why insufficient documentation and hearsay evidence can derail even seemingly straightforward claims. The Background In 2007, Anne Margaret King and her daughter-in-law Cristina Maria De Miranda purchased a property in Hamilton for $335,000, taking title as joint tenants. Anne contributed $110,000 toward the purchase price, while Cristina’s portion…

Admore Capital Group Gp Inc. v. Hajduk, 2025 ONSC 4533 Real estate transactions involving family members and collateral security arrangements require careful scrutiny, even when independent legal advice has been provided. The recent Ontario Superior Court decision in Admore Capital Group Gp Inc. v. Hajduk offers important lessons for transactional lawyers about the limits of relying solely on certificates of independent legal advice when unconscionability or undue influence may be at play. The Facts Jack Hajduk and his wife lived in a Toronto property on which Admore Capital held a second mortgage, which was registered in June 2021 and quickly…

As a real estate transactional lawyer, you may not regularly deal with the enforcement of restrictive covenants but understanding how courts approach these disputes is crucial when advising clients on property purchases and community association governance. The recent Ontario Superior Court decision in Castle Hill Neighbourhood Association v. Morse, 2025 ONSC 4522, provides important guidance on the validity and enforceability of restrictive covenants within building schemes. The Facts Jerome Morse owned a luxury townhouse in the Castle Hill community near Casa Loma in Toronto—a development of 93 white row townhouses designed to maintain a uniform Edwardian-style appearance. After a fire…

As a transactional real estate lawyer, you typically focus on closing deals, not courtroom battles. However, a recent Ontario Superior Court decision serves as an important reminder that seemingly straightforward mortgage enforcement can become complicated when residential tenancies are involved. In Croskery v. Pomeroy, 2025 ONSC 4528, Associate Justice Kamal refused to grant a mortgagee’s routine request for a writ of possession, highlighting critical issues that transactional lawyers should consider when advising clients on rental properties. The Basic Facts Michael Croskery held a second mortgage on a property in Ottawa. After the mortgagor, Graham Stanley Pomeroy, defaulted, Croskery obtained a…

Serena Homes Construction Limited v. Shakil et al, 2025 ONSC 3855, offers important lessons for transactional real estate lawyers about construction liens, particularly when disputes arise over allegedly exaggerated lien amounts. While you may not regularly handle construction litigation, understanding how courts approach these disputes can help you advise clients on risk management and the potential consequences of lien registration. Background The case involved a residential construction project in King, Ontario, where property owners Shakil and Shakeel hired Serena Homes Construction Limited to provide development and construction services. The relationship began in February 2021 and ultimately soured by August 2024,…

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in 2724582 Ontario Inc. v. Gold, 2025 ONCA 531, serves as a stark reminder to real estate practitioners about the dangers lurking in complex mortgage schemes and the limits of releases in protecting parties from their consequences. This case offers several important takeaways for transactional lawyers who may encounter similar fact patterns in their practice. The Facts: A Web of Connected Transactions Rhonda Gold owned two properties and found herself entangled in a series of mortgage transactions between 2019 and 2022, all brokered by realtor Sam Kamra. What appeared to be arm’s length…

Key Lessons from 1396929 Ontario Inc. v. Valladares for Transactional Lawyers 1396929 Ontario Inc. v. Valladares, 2025 ONCA 513 The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Valladares serves as an important reminder for real estate practitioners about the potential pitfalls in mortgage enforcement proceedings, particularly when dealing with vulnerable borrowers or complex factual scenarios. While this was a stay motion rather than a final determination, Justice Paciocco’s analysis offers valuable insights for transactional lawyers who may find their mortgage documents later challenged in litigation. Case Background The case involved a second mortgage default on a residential property owned by…

The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in Ahmad v. Ain, 2025 ONSC 4017, serves as a stark reminder that firm, unconditional real estate agreements mean exactly what they say. For transactional lawyers, this case offers valuable insights into damages calculations, mitigation obligations, and the limits of accommodation in real estate transactions. The Facts: A Straightforward Breach with Costly Consequences The case involved a seemingly routine residential purchase in Bradford West Gwillimbury. Qura Tul Ain agreed to purchase Ammar Ahmed’s home for $1.45 million under a firm agreement with no conditions and a “time is of the essence” clause. The original…

A recent Ontario Superior Court decision demonstrates how the doctrine of equitable subrogation can rescue lenders from solicitor misconduct—and what transactional lawyers need to know to protect their clients. The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in Bank of Montreal v. Hossain, 2025 ONSC 3950, serves as a stark reminder of how solicitor negligence can create complex priority disputes—and how the doctrine of equitable subrogation can provide relief in appropriate circumstances. For transactional real estate lawyers, this case offers important insights into mortgage priority protection and the potential consequences when transactions go awry. The Facts: A Transaction Gone Wrong The case…