2642948 Ontario Inc. v. Jonny’s Antiques Ltd., 2025 ONCA 892 Why This Matters to Transactional Lawyers As a transactional real estate lawyer, you’ve likely drafted countless mortgage agreements with standard remedies clauses. But have you ever considered what happens when your client actually needs to enforce those provisions? The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in 2642948 Ontario Inc. v. Jonny’s Antiques Ltd. provides important clarity on when mortgagees can take peaceable possession of property without court intervention, and why proper drafting and documentation matter. The Facts 264 Ontario held a mortgage on commercial property in Shakespeare, Ontario. After the…

Introduction In Baha v. Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37, 2025 ONSC 7043, Justice Smith delivered a sobering reminder about the importance of properly handling accommodation requests in condominium settings. What began as a complaint about barking dogs mushroomed into five separate legal proceedings, over 4,000 pages of court records, and significant financial and emotional costs for all parties involved. While the decision addresses oppression claims under the Condominium Act, 1998, it offers valuable lessons for transactional real estate lawyers advising clients on condominium purchases, status certificate reviews, and understanding potential liabilities. The Facts: A Dispute That Spiraled Out of…

As transactional real estate lawyers, we draft Agreements of Purchase and Sale with the expectation that our clients will honor the terms we’ve negotiated. But what happens when a relationship sours, co-owners seek partition, and those carefully crafted schedules become litigation fodder? The Ontario Superior Court’s recent decision in Rizzo v. Daniel, 2025 ONSC 6286, offers important lessons about how purchase obligations can follow properties through partition sales, even over a vendor’s objections. The Facts Michelangelo Rizzo and Tara-Lee Daniel were common-law spouses who purchased a $3.1 million cottage property at Trent Lake in 2021 as 50/50 tenants-in-common. The purchase…

Dehkordi v. O’Dell, 2025 ONSC 6654 If you’ve ever wondered whether the way you strike out a clause in an Agreement of Purchase and Sale matters, a recent Ontario Superior Court decision provides a stark reminder: it absolutely does. In Dehkordi v. O’Dell, Justice Mathai awarded the vendors over $260,000 in damages after finding that financing and inspection conditions were completely removed from the agreement, despite the purchaser’s creative arguments to the contrary. The Facts In June 2022, during what the court described as a “hot” seller’s market, the purchaser’s agent prepared an offer on the vendors’ property for $1,600,000.…

Introduction In 863880 Ontario Limited v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 2025 ONCA 755, the Ontario Court of Appeal delivered an important reminder about limitation periods in environmental contamination cases. The key takeaway for transactional lawyers: actual knowledge that property is contaminated starts the limitation clock ticking, even if your client doesn’t yet know the full scope of the problem. Background The appellant purchased contaminated property from CP Rail’s predecessor in 1990. Between 1990 and 1991, the purchaser received four environmental reports confirming soil contamination, though the extent remained uncertain. The purchaser, a property developer, decided not to address the contamination…

In 2609413 Ontario Inc. v. Brant, 2025 ONCA 788, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that the enforceability of a registered mortgage can be conditional on external events, even when the mortgage itself contains no such condition. This decision offers crucial lessons for transactional lawyers about the importance of examining the entire factual matrix surrounding security instruments. Background This dispute arose from a transaction involving both real property and a preliminary medical cannabis cultivation licence. When Robbie Allen Brant died suddenly in January 2018, his widow Amanda Brant inherited his property in Amherstburg and became sole signatory of a numbered…

Citation: Deakin v. Chu, 2025 ONSC 6198 The Deal That Went Up in Smoke In Deakin v. Chu, Justice ten Cate confronted a question that may surprise transactional practitioners: does a home seller in Ontario have a positive legal obligation to disclose the presence of cigarette smoke to potential purchasers? The answer, at least for now, is no. However, the case offers important lessons for drafting agreements and managing client expectations in residential real estate transactions. The Facts The Chus, living in Ottawa, retained a realtor to help them relocate closer to family near London, Ontario. Because of the long…

In Connelly v. Garito, 2025 ONSC 6449, Justice Cullin delivered a sobering reminder that homeowners who attempt significant structural repairs without proper expertise or permits may face liability to future purchasers, even years after the sale closes. The Facts The Garitos purchased a residential property in South Porcupine in 2012 and moved in approximately two years later. After discovering frost buildup and cold air infiltration along the south foundation wall, Mr. Garito took matters into his own hands. Rather than hiring a professional or obtaining a building permit, he constructed a substantial concrete wall, which was eight inches thick, four…

Hastings Condominium Corporation No. 4 v. Boyce, 2025 ONSC 6159 The Situation In Hastings Condominium Corporation No. 4 v. Boyce, Justice Corthorn confronted a condominium dispute that spiraled from routine maintenance issues into a full-blown enforcement application. The case serves as a cautionary tale for transactional lawyers about what can happen when condominium governance breaks down and the legal remedies available to address it. Peter Boyce owned a unit in a 77-unit residential condominium in Belleville. For years, he permitted the condominium corporation’s contractors to maintain his exclusive-use yard. Then, starting in 2023, everything changed. Boyce refused access, allowed his…

In 1000979674 Ontario Inc. v. 13276139 Canada Inc., 2025 ONSC 6606, Justice Hilliard delivered a forceful reminder that mortgagees taking possession of property after default cannot simply terminate existing tenancies at will. This case offers critical insights for transactional lawyers drafting mortgages, leases, and security agreements. The Background The property owner, Woodside Greens Business Association Inc., granted a second mortgage to the respondents in August 2023, securing $3.9 million at 14% interest. The mortgage was supported by a General Assignment of Rents Agreement (GARA) and a General Security Agreement (GSA) covering all accounts receivable, inventory, equipment, and intangibles. In August…