In this presenation the Real Estate Group at FMC discuss all aspects concerning the recent developments in commercial leasing.

1. FMC Fall Real Estate Seminar
September 27, 2011
1

2. Review of Recent Developments in
Commercial Leasing
Presented by: Sheldon Disenhouse & Jordan Hill
2

3. INTRODUCTION
3

4. Standard Methods of Measurement:
The New BOMA 2010 Standard
4

5. Office Buildings: Standard Methods of
Measurement (2010)
• Calculation of Rentable Area
• Overview of differences between BOMA 1980, 1996, and 2010
5

6. Retail Buildings: Standard Methods of
Measurement (2010)
• Introduction by BOMA of its first Retail Standard
• Calculation of Gross Leasable Area
6

7. Case Comment: Additional Rent
Adjustment Provisions
7

8. Additional Rent Adjustment Provisions
• Ayerswood Development Corporation v. Western Proresp Inc.
(Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
• Lease, Section 3.04:
“Wherever under this Lease the Tenant is to pay its proportionate
share, the amount thereof may be estimated by the Landlord for such
period as the Landlord may from time determine, and the Tenant
covenants and agrees to pay unto the Landlord the amounts so
determined in monthly installments, in advance, during such period and
with other rental payments provided for in this lease. As soon as
practicable after the end of such period, the Landlord shall advise the
Tenant of the actual amounts for such period and, if necessary, an
adjustment shall be made between the parties.”
8

9. Additional Rent Adjustment Provisions
• Decision:
– If the parties had wished to define the period, presumably they would
have included such a definition in the lease.
– Landlord was entitled to use the period from May 1, 2001, when the
leased commenced, to December 10, 2007, when it billed the Tenant.
9

10. Other Recent Cases
10

11. Equitable Remedies
• A number of cases over the past few years have made it clear
that courts may very well be prepared to use equitable
remedies when a strict reading of the lease provisions could
lead to an unfair or commercially unreasonable result.
• Calloway REIT (Westgate) Inc. v. Michaels of Canada ULC
(Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
– A commercial contract is to be interpreted:
“…to the extent there is any ambiguity in the contract, in a fashion that
accords with good business sense, and that avoids a commercial
absurdity.”
11

12. Doctrine of Spent Breach
• 1290079 Ontario Inc. v. William Beltsos (Ontario Court of
Appeal)
– Doctrine of spent breach:
• A historical breach of a lease covenant, once remedied, will not entitle a
Landlord to refuse an otherwise valid option to renew the lease.
– But:
• If a Landlord has a subsisting cause of action against the Tenant that is
rooted in the breach, the lease is not “effectively clear” on the renewal
date.
12

13. Doctrine of Spent Breach
• 6133886 Canada Inc. v. Hazelton Hotels International Inc.
(Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
– Lease provided: “…so long as 6133886 Canada Inc… is not in default
under the terms of the Lease…” it will be entitled to rent free periods
from time to time during the term.
– Tenant was in default from time to time, but not in default at the time
the rent free period was applicable.
– Court determined that the pre‐condition does not require that Tenant
shall not have been in default; it requires only that it is not in default.
13

14. The preceding presentation is meant to only provide
general information and should not be relied on as
legal advice.
If you are faced with one of these issues, please retain
professional assistance as each situation is unique
14

15. Review of Municipal Official Plans
Why they are important and why do you need to be involved in
the process?
Presented by: Jason Park & Mark Piel
15

16. Introduction – What’s at stake?
• Losing Development Rights
– Redesignation of properties under an Official Plan
– Additional requirements added to Official Plan that affect
redevelopment of properties
• Conversion of Employment Lands
– City of Toronto Official Plan Update may be the only opportunity to
obtain conversion for another 5 years
16

17. Planning Act Requirements for the Update
of Municipal Official Plans
17

18. Let’s start at the beginning…
• Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act,
2006 (“Bill 51”)
• One of the general themes of the 2006 amendments was to
recognize the important role municipalities play in land use
development
• Bill 51 increased opportunities for the public to participate in
planning decision making at the local level
• The Ontario Municipal Board is to “have regard to” local
planning decisions – a sort of qualified deference
18

19. Official Plan Update Process
• Bill 51 introduced obligation on municipalities to revise their
Official Plans no later than 5 years after they were in effect
– Conform with provincial plans, or do not conflict with them;
– Have regard to matters of provincial interest;
– Are consistent with policy statements issued by the Province; and
– If the Official Plan contains policies regarding areas of employment,
including policies regarding the designation of areas of employment
and removal of land there from, to confirm or amend those policies
(ss. 26(1)(a) and (b)).
19

20. Statutory Public Consultation
Requirements
• The Planning Act now directs municipal councils to
– hold a special meeting of council to discuss revisions that may be
required to the in effect Official Plan before those revisions are
adopted; and
– Have regard to any written submissions about what revisions may be
required and to give any person who attends the special meeting an
opportunity to be heard. (ss. 26(3) and 26(5))
20

21. Opportunities to Appeal Employment
Lands Policies
21

22. Appeal Rights from Official Plan Update
• Preconditions of filing an appeal from decisions of council as a
result of the Official Plan Update process include the
requirement that appellants must have either made oral
submissions at a public meeting or written submissions before
an Official Plan or amendments to an Official Plan are adopted
by council (ss. 17(24))
• Failure to comply with at least one of these preconditions
means a stakeholder may lose their right to appeal a decision
as a result of the Official Plan Update process
22

23. Appeals of Employment Lands Policies
• Official Plan Update process provides owners of land in areas
of employment an opportunity to appeal Official Plan policies
to the Ontario Municipal Board
• There is currently no right of appeal from council decisions to
refuse privately initiated applications to redesignate areas of
employment to other land use designations provided the
applicable Official Plan contains policies dealing with the
removal of land from areas of employment (ss. 22(7.3)).
• Because an Official Plan Update process is municipally
initiated, any decision re: areas of employment attracts a right
of appeal under the Planning Act
23

24. Appeals of Employment Lands Policies
• Council’s decision to amend existing areas of employment
policies can be appealed provided submissions are made
during a public meeting or made in writing before council on
this issue
• The Official Plan Update process therefore provides an
opportunity for owners of lands in areas of employment to do
an “end‐run” on the Planning Act prohibition on appeals from
a refusal decision of council re: redesignation of lands in areas
of employment and make submissions to the OMB on the
planning merits of redesignation
24

25. City of Toronto Official Plan Update
25

26. City of Toronto Official Plan Update
• This fall marks the fifth anniversary of the OMB’s order
bringing into effect the City of Toronto Official Plan
• Timelines
– Public consultation process is scheduled to begin in October 2011 with
a series of open houses
– Council will consider proposed amendments by the end of 2012
– Notice of the special meeting of council must circulate no later than 30
days before the special meeting occurs (ss. 26(4)).
26

27. City of Toronto Official Plan Update
• Issues identified by Planning Staff to be considered during the
process include:
– Ensuring the Official Plan conforms with
• the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
• the Rouge Plan
• the Green Belt Plan
• the Regional Transportation Plan – Metrolinx’ “The Big Move: Transforming
Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area”
27

28. City of Toronto Official Plan Update
• Issues identified by Planning Staff to be considered during the
process include:
– Confirming or amending Official Plan Policies 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 on
Employment Lands
– Implementation of key elements of the Avenues and Mid‐rise Buildings
Study
– Implementation of elements of the Tower Renewal Program
– Policies to encourage the development of residential units for
households with children in the downtown
– Elements of the Climate Change Plan and Sustainable Energy Program
– Strategies to advance infrastructure requirements and deployment of
electric vehicles
– Update the preservation of cultural heritage section of the Official Plan
to reflect the passage of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2005
28

29. City of Toronto Official Plan Update
• “Municipal Comprehensive Review” to occur concurrently with
Official Plan Update
– Under the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and the Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe municipalities may permit the
conversion of lands within employment areas to non‐employment uses
only through a Municipal Comprehensive Review where the following
criteria are met:
• There is need for the conversion
• Lands proposed to be converted are not required in the long‐term for
employment uses
• The municipality will meet the Province’s employment forecasts under the
Plan and the achievement of other policies of the Plan
• The conversion will not adversely affect the viability of the Employment
Area
• There is existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate the conversion
29

30. Protecting Your Right to Appeal Official
Plan Update Amendments
30

31. Recommendations for Participation in
Official Plan Update Process
• Although not a product of the Official Plan Update process, the
adoption and approval of the Region of York Official Plan,
currently under appeal to the OMB, illustrates the potential
issues related to non‐participation in the post‐Bill 51 world
• The Region has objected to appeals of the Region’s Official
Plan because
– appeal preconditions were not satisfied (i.e., failure to participate
before adoption of the Official Plan)
– The scope of the appeal does not match the scope of participation at
the council level
31

32. Recommendations for Participation in
Official Plan Update Process
• Scenario 1 ‐ Failure to participate
– You’re monitoring the public consultation process during the Official
Plan Update but you have no objections with the Planning Staff’s
proposed amendments and decide to stay on the sidelines assuming
that Council will adopt the amendments as proposed
– Planning Staff recommendations for amendments go to Council and
Council, after debating Planning Staff’s recommendations for 24 plus
hours, adopt the amendments in a revised form
– You don’t like the revised form of the amendments, but because you
didn’t participate in the process, your appeal rights are in jeopardy
– Recommendation: “Get on the record” and support recommended
policies you approve of before the amendment is adopted
32

33. Recommendations for Participation in
Official Plan Update Process
• Scenario 2 – Deficient Submissions
– You are monitoring the public consultation process during the Official
Plan Update process and don’t like the some of Planning Staff’s
recommended amendments
– You file a letter with the municipal Clerk objecting to the policies
– Your letter raises some, but not all, issues that you have with the
process but you think “I participated, I’m safe, I can always appeal to
the OMB providing more comprehensive reasons for my objections at
that time.”
– You file a Notice of Appeal to the OMB but find yourself defending
against a motion to dismiss your appeal brought by the municipality
because your appeal raises issues you failed to mention during the
public consultation process
– Recommendation: be as comprehensive as possible when making your
submissions during the public consultation process
33

34. Recommendations for Participation in
Official Plan Update Process
• Summary of Recommendations
– Know your real estate interests and their development potential
– Understand how proposed amendments to the Official Plan may affect
your real estate interests
– Speak with us so you maximize the effect of your participation in the
Official Plan Update public consultation process – “get on the record”
and do it the right way
34

35. The preceding presentation is meant to only provide
general information and should not be relied on as
legal advice.
If you are faced with one of these issues, please retain
professional assistance as each situation is unique
35

36. Disclosure of (Alleged) Property Defects in Commercial
Real Estate Sale Transactions:
The Next Round of Cases
Presented by: ANDREW SALEM
September 27, 2011
36

37. Caveat Emptor
“Absent fraud, mistake or misrepresentation, a purchaser takes
existing property as he finds it, whether it be dilapidated, bug‐
infested or otherwise uninhabitable or deficient in expected
amenities, unless he protects himself by contract terms”*
*B. Laskin, “Defects in Title and Quality: Caveat Emptor and the Vendor’s Duty of Disclosure”, Law Society of Upper Canada
Special Lectures: Contracts for the Sale of Land, 1960
37

38. Alleged defects that were not disclosed:
Some examples from earlier cases
• Nearby landfill used as a garbage dump
• Existence of radioactive material
• Recent landslides from adjoining properties
• Municipal council had approved recommendation for heritage
designation
• Evidence of environmental contamination
• Adjacent property used as a nude beach
38

39. Exemptions to Caveat Emptor in Real Estate Transactions
• Fraud, Mistake or Misrepresentation
• Statutory protections for new home buyers
• Failure to Disclose Latent Defects that could render the
property unfit for habitation or dangerous
• Contractual Terms
39

40. What is a Defect?
“A defect is generally understood to mean something that
constitutes a failing, shortcoming, fault or imperfection. This is
obviously a subjective concept. To adapt a phrase, one
person’s defect may be another person’s ideal.
Obviously, to make a determination of whether something is a
defect in the quality of land, the intended use of the land must
be taken into account.”*
*688350 Ontario Ltd. v. Piron [1994] O.J. No. 2844 (Ont.Gen.Div.) at para. 132
40

41. Patent and Latent Defects
“A patent defect which can be thrust upon a purchaser must
be a defect which arises either to the eye, or by necessary
implication from something which is visible to the eye…
A latent defect, obviously, is one which is not discoverable, by
mere observation.”*
*V. Di Castri, Law of Vendor and Purchaser, 3rd. ed., (updated 2011)
41

42. The Defect Analysis – Does it Even Matter?
“The cases are not entirely consistent in approach. They do
not generally first consider whether the defect at issue is
patent or latent, some rely on the fraud exception and others
on the latent defect principle and some seem to apply a mix of
the two to arrive at a desired result.”*
*Dennis v. Gray, 2011 ONSC 1567 (per Hoy J.) at para 27.
42

43. Three Recent Defect / Disclosure Decisions
• Kingspan Insulated Parcels Ltd. v. City of Brantford, 2010 ONSC
4610, leave to appeal refused at 2011 ONSC 265
• Cresswell Investments Inc. v. Pavone, 2011 BCSC 1069
• Dennis v. Gray, 2011 ONSC 1657
43

44. Kingspan Insulated Parcels Ltd. v. City of Brantford
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, September 13, 2010
Leave to Appeal refused January 13, 2011
44

45. Kingspan v. Brantford: Contractual Clauses
• Lands sold “as is”: The Purchase Agreement provided that the
land was being sold “as is”, and that except as otherwise set
out in the Purchase Agreement, Kingspan had not received and
had not relied on any representations by the City concerning
the condition of the Kingspan property, including suitability for
building purposes. This clause survived closing.
• No Claims: The City represented that it was not aware of any
claims pending or threatened relating to the ownership or use
of the Kingspan property.
45

46. Kingspan v. Brantford: Contractual Clauses (cont’d)
• Property Inspection: Kingspan had 90 days to inspect the land
and determine feasibility of its intended use. The City was
required to provide Kingspan with any written information in
the City’s possession or control with respect to the Kingspan
property. If Kingspan was not satisfied with the results of its
inspection, it had the right to terminate the Purchase
Agreement. Kingspan waived this condition.
46

47. Kingspan v. Brantford: Result
• City’s Motion for Summary Judgment dismissed: City did not
meet the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue
requiring a trial.
• Court not satisfied that the City’s disclosure with respect to
aboriginal claims was sufficient in the circumstances.
• Court not satisfied that the City has established that
information that it did provide to Kingspan was not untrue,
inaccurate or misleading, given the information that it did not
provide.
47

48. Kingspan v. Brantford: Latent Defect?
• Kingspan argued that the pending or threatened aboriginal
claims constituted a latent defect that the City actively
concealed from Kingspan.
• The City’s position was that there was no defect (either patent
or latent). However, the parties were unable to find any
jurisprudence on whether an aboriginal land claim constituted
a defect, whether patent or latent, which may suggest the
issue is a novel one.
• The court agreed with Kingspan that it would be inappropriate
to determine this on the summary judgment motion.
48

49. Creswell Investments Inc. v. Pavone
• British Columbia Supreme Court, August 9, 2011 (N. Smith J.)
49

50. Creswell Investments Inc. v. Pavone: Result
• The Purchaser could have discovered the true status of the
mezzanine through the reasonable, minimal inquiries that a
reasonable purchaser in its position would be expected to
make. It was therefore a patent defect, for which the vendor
is not automatically liable and to which caveat emptor applies.
50

51. Dennis v. Gray
• Ontario Superior Court of Justice, March 11, 2011
51

52. Dennis v. Gray: Result
• Vendor’s Motion for Order dismissing the action under Rule
21.01(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure dismissed.
• Court found that it is not “plain and obvious” that if the danger
posed by the defect is considered sufficiently grave, a duty to
disclose will not be imposed on the Vendors.
52

53. Suggestions for Avoiding Defect / Disclosure Disputes
Purchasers:
• Let your intended use be known
• Due Diligence Conditions
• Vendor Representations and Warranties: be precise
• Indemnity Provisions
Vendors
• “As is” clauses
• Disclosure Management throughout the transaction
• Do not “actively conceal”
53

54. The preceding presentation is meant to only provide
general information and should not be relied on as
legal advice.
If you are faced with one of these issues, please retain
professional assistance as each situation is unique
54

55. Toronto Condominium Update
September 27, 2011
Presented by: Jules A. Mikelberg
10295372 v1

56. CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT – s. 33.1
• Effective July 1, 2011
• Notice of Intention to Register Condominium
• Construction Trade Newspaper
• 5 to 15 Business Days before Approval
• Form 24
– Owner Name and Address
– Lands
– Contractors (Last 90 Days) Names and Addresses
• Liability for Damages to Lien Claimants
56

57. MARKET FACTORS
1. Low Interest Rates
2. International Investors
(India, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, China)
3. 80,000 to 100,000 Newcomers
4. Lack of Purpose Built Rentals
5. Volatile Stock Markets/International Instability
6. Wide Range of Products/Purchasers
– 300 to 9,000 sq ft
– End Users, First Time Home Buyers, Empty Nesters,
Investors, Students, Children
57

58. • Last 5 years – TSX up to 5%, High‐rise Index up 53%
• June to August 2011 – TSX down 12%, High‐rise Index Flat at
$528 per square foot
• August 2011 – Index $451,000, 4.9% year over year
• 77% of sales in City of Toronto
Realnet Canada (August 2011)
58

59. • 8% Annual increases in high‐rise prices over last 5 years
• Q2 2011
– Record 9400 Units Sold (2007 – 7,000, Chicago 870)
– 56% of New Home Sales
– Record Active Projects
– Record Launches (40 in Q2)
– Record Units under Construction
- BILD (July/August 2011)
- Urbanation (July/August 2011)
59

60. • 2007 – All‐time Record – 22,500 Units Sold
• 2011 – Urbanation Predicts New Record of 25,000 Units Sold
60

61. 2012
61

62. The preceding presentation is meant to only provide
general information and should not be relied on as
legal advice.
If you are faced with one of these issues, please retain
professional assistance as each situation is unique
62

63. Thank You

64. Sheldon Disenhouse Jordan Hill
sheldon.disenhouse@fmc‐law.com jordan.hill@fmc‐law.com
416 863 4376 416 862 3480
Jason Park Mark Piel
jason.park@fmc‐law.com mark.piel@fmc‐law.com
416 863 4786 416 863 4744
Andrew Salem Jules Mikelberg
andrew.salem@fmc‐law.com jules.mikelberg@fmc‐law.com
416 863 4728 416 863 4380

65. The preceding presentation contains examples of the kinds
of issues companies dealing with real estate could face. If
you are faced with one of these issues, please retain
professional assistance as each situation is unique.