Jurisdiction - Investment Property (SCSM)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-26
CLNP Page ID:	1584
Page Categories:	[Ontario Small Claims]
Citation:	Jurisdiction - Investment Property (SCSM), CLNP 1584, <3G>, retrieved on 2024-11-26
Editor:	P08916
Last Updated:	2021/08/16

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43

22 (1) The Small Claims Court is continued as a branch of the Superior Court of Justice under the name Small Claims Court in English and Cour des petites créances in French. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 22 (1); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

(2) The Small Claims Court consists of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice who shall be president of the court and such other judges of the Superior Court of Justice as the Chief Justice designates from time to time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 22 (2); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (14, 17).

(3) Every judge of the Superior Court of Justice is also a judge of the Small Claims Court. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 22 (3); 1996, c. 25, s. 9 (17).

23 (1) The Small Claims Court,

(a) has jurisdiction in any action for the payment of money where the amount claimed does not exceed the prescribed amount exclusive of interest and costs; and

(b) has jurisdiction in any action for the recovery of possession of personal property where the value of the property does not exceed the prescribed amount. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 23 (1).

Personal Property Security Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.10

1 (1) In this Act,

...

“account” means a monetary obligation not evidenced by chattel paper or an instrument, whether or not it has been earned by performance, but does not include investment property; (“compte”)

...

“goods” means tangible personal property other than chattel paper, documents of title, instruments, money and investment property, and includes fixtures, growing crops, the unborn young of animals, timber to be cut, and minerals and hydrocarbons to be extracted; (“objets”)

...

“instrument” means,

(a) a bill, note or cheque within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act (Canada) or any other writing that evidences a right to the payment of money and is of a type that in the ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary endorsement or assignment, or

(b) a letter of credit and an advice of credit if the letter or advice states that it must be surrendered upon claiming payment thereunder,

but does not include a writing that constitutes part of chattel paper, a document of title or investment property; (“effet”)

...

“intangible” means all personal property, including choses in action, that is not goods, chattel paper, documents of title, instruments, money or investment property; (“bien immatériel”)

...

“personal property” means chattel paper, documents of title, goods, instruments, intangibles, money and investment property, and includes fixtures but does not include building materials that have been affixed to real property; (“bien meuble”)

Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5

1 In this Act,

...

“property” means land designated as a property under subsection 141 (2) or (4); (“unité foncière”)

(...)

141 (1) This section applies only to land in the parts of Ontario designated under Part II of the Land Registration Reform Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5, s. 141 (1).

(2) The Director of Titles shall, in the required manner, divide into blocks and properties any land that is designated under Part II of the Land Registration Reform Act and assign property identifiers to those properties. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5, s. 141 (2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 153 (1); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 12 (10).

(3) The Director of Titles shall, in the required manner, prepare property maps showing all properties and prepare all other maps as are required. 1998, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 153 (2); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 12 (11).

(4) The land registrar shall maintain property maps in the required manner and shall assign property identifiers to properties when and in the manner specified by the Director of Titles. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5, s. 141 (4); 1998, c. 18, Sched. E, s. 153 (3); 2000, c. 26, Sched. B, s. 12 (11).

Trang v. Nguyen, 2012 ONCA 885 (CanLII)

(1) The Properties [14] According to the Agreed Statement of Facts, Mr. Tran has an interest in three properties that were relevant to the CRA's motion:

• 58 Granton Avenue, Ottawa – a residential property registered in the names of Mr. Tran and his wife, Ms. Nguyen, as joint tenants and used by them as their principal residence;
• 46 Epworth Avenue, Ottawa – registered in the names of Mr. Tran and Ms. Nguyen as joint tenants and used by them as an investment property;
• 1340 Wellington Street West, Ottawa – Mr. Tran’s business property, registered in his name alone and used for his acupuncture practice.

Carriero v Carli, 2013 CanLII 88835 (ON SCSM)

1 The facts in this case are fairly straightforward. The plaintiff was at all material times the owner of a condominium unit located on Lakeshore Road in Mississauga, Ontario. He had recently purchased the unit as an investment property. The defendants had also purchased a unit in the same building, but required some time before the renovations on their unit was completed. As a result, they entered into a month-to-month tenancy with the plaintiff, executing a residential lease on March 2, 2010.

1803095 Ontario Inc v Waterloo Condominium Corporation No 314, 2012 CanLII 98316 (ON SCSM)

10. The building was 20-plus years old at the time of Mr. Piccin’s observations (see Exhibit 1, Tab B, page 3, third paragraph - reference to age of building paper which must refer to original construction). The exterior walls were built with plywood also known as chipboard, with a paper moisture barrier and MDF (paper-based) siding. It seems obvious that such materials are not designed for longevity and were selected for their low purchase price. I note that only 14 of 46 units are owner-occupied, indicating the condominium is essentially an investment property. The current president of the board, Mr. Maurice Cheveldayoff, is one of the investors.

Fong v Lemieux, 2016 CanLII 30092 (ON SCSM)

[43] Steele testified there were more showings of the property than the Defendants anticipated. This probably caused Lemieux in particular frustration.

[44] The property was bought by Jacob Perez as an investment property. Steele represented him. Steele felt the property should have sold for $220,000.00 if it was in better condition, based on comparable sales in the area and the neighbourhood issues noted above [in para 39].