Ten Measures To Be Announced To Help Fix Toronto’s Housing Market On Tuesday, April 18th, 2017 Finance Minister Charles Sousa announced that he is set to unveil 10 measures to help with Toronto’s out of control housing market, which will be released as early as Thursday. These measures will range from rent controls to a new tax on real estate speculators. The release of Charles Sousa’s plan will be about a week ahead of the release of the first balanced budget since 2008. Tuesday for the announcement, Sousa met with Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Toronto Mayor John Tory. They met for an hour to discuss housing issues which included a discussion on current market trends, and what the intentions are with the plan with a focus on rent controls and addressing the current policy that excludes buildings built after 1991 from rent controls. Expectation on Rent Increases From an article released by the Toronto Star, the expectation on rent increases, when the 10 measures are implemented is that the annual increase will be 3.5% which is significantly better than what some condo owners have been subject to, such as having their rental cost double. Housing Speculator Crackdown Part of Charles Sousa’s plan is to place a levy on housing speculators and foreign buyers. This could include a vacancy tax to discourage investors from leaving their properties empty, to either rent them out or move in themselves if possible. All Government Levels Serious With all levels of the government working together to control Toronto’s housing market, they want to make it clear that they are taking the current state of the market seriously and have decided to have quarterly meetings focusing on housing. All of this seems like a step in the right direction, as the Bank of Canada governor recently said the 33% yearly increase that we have seen is deemed as unsustainable. Once the plan is released, the public will have a better idea of what these 10 measures are going to address. The most important thing about this plan is that its goal is to protect buyers and sellers while stabilizing the housing market. Tim Hudak, CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association, stated that he believes the best solution is to get new homes and the supply of homes up, the amount of supply available in the issue. With higher supply, the hope is to limit the number of bidding wars that occur, in turn, lower the prices that homes go for. His final note was that he likes that all levels of the government are getting involved, it is a good thing they all want to work together to solve the problem. Until the plan is put into action, which is expected to be announced on Thursday we’ll have to put our trust in all levels of the government that they will be able to successfully manage Toronto’s hot housing market. If you are in need of a real estate lawyer for a purchase or sale of a home, please contact one of our real estate lawyers today, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. For more information please visit our website. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateApril 18, 2017June 19, 2020
Millennial Homebuyers and Toronto Real Estate It comes as no surprise that the crazy state of Toronto’s housing market, with the increased value of homes and condos sitting at 30% or so from this time last year, is causing many first time home buyers and young homeowners to have buyer’s remorse. The Huffington Post recently published an article that featured a survey conducted by CIBC, which only included millennials (aged 18-34) respondents. The findings were: 52 percent of millennials who don’t own a home believe they will never own one, or doubt they will ever be able to afford one 81 percent who owned a home plan to sell it; four in 10 plan to upgrade. 63 percent say it is due to the mortgage and housing costs. 57 percent worry about rising interests rates giving them trouble with their mortgage payments 36 percent believe renting is “the better option” Additionally, CIBC’s research reveals that 38% of the Canadian millennial generation already owns a property, forty-two percent rent and 19 percent live with family. For millennials who do not own a home yet: 23 percent say they’ll never own one 29 percent doubt they’ll be able to afford one Millennials & The Housing Bubble When questioned about the housing bubble, the opinion was almost split down the middle: 54 percent believe prices won’t drop 40 percent believe prices will fall within 5 years 4 percent believe they’ll drop within the next year For those who own a house and were questioned about selling, this was their response: 62 percent are reluctant to sell because they fear what they’ll be able to afford in this high-priced market The ongoing, seemingly never-ending struggle that millennials are currently faced with, is essentially due to the overwhelming number of baby boomers in Toronto. They are looking to not only make some money in this hot Toronto real estate market, but also are reaching the point to which they want to downsize – looking to condos, smaller homes, or retirement homes. Seeing as the homes that baby boomers possess are untouchable to most first time home-buyers, people looking to get into their first home, generally look to houses outside of the GTA or condos. Most news outlets have been focusing on homes in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) going for hundreds of thousands of dollars over their asking price, however, condos have been seeing much of the same. This is due to the interest of all parties: baby boomers, millennials, foreign investors, and other individuals looking to purchase real estate. With the amount of competition for real estate in Toronto, many people with little capital (millennials) are unable to outbid those who possess it (baby boomers or foreign investors). Situations such as this (as well as interest rates, banks, etc.) are what have made millennials become discouraged when even thinking about homeownership, as seen from the study results earlier in this post. For now, however, we all will have to see what will happen to the market, whether the bubble will burst, or prices continue to climb. If you are in need of a real estate lawyer, please visit our Real Estate Page and contact one of our Real Estate Lawyers today. For any other legal services or inquiries, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP directly at 416-449-1400 or visit our website for more information. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateApril 13, 2017June 19, 2020
New Condo Development To Be A Game Changer For Vaughan Given the current landscape of the Toronto real estate market, it is not surprising that people are beginning to look further out of the city for a property. The market in 2016 and now 2017 has caused first-time homebuyers and downsizers to be stuck with two options: Purchase a small condo to stay in Toronto Look to the outskirts of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) for an affordable home Even so, if you choose one of those options over the other, it will still cost you. In March alone, detached homes in the 416 sat at an average price of $1.56 million with condos at $550,000 and the 905 at $1.1 million average for a detached home and condos at $440,000. If option two is where you see yourself leaning, you may be in luck. There are many condo developments popping up all over the GTA, but in a recent article by the Toronto Star, Vaughan may be the next best place to settle outside of the concrete jungle. An urban vibe has been set to land in Vaughan with what they are calling, Transit City. It is a 55-storey residential tower, the first residential tower to be developed in SmartREIT’s 100-acre Vaughan Metropolitan Centre. There will be a mixture of commercial and residential projects and will be located adjacent to the Viva bus terminal which will connect to the TTC’s new subway stop. To further develop the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, and provide it with some downtown credibility, Bar Buca, part of the Buca brand and King Street Food Company, will be opening their first 905 location on the main floor of the building. Mitchell Goldhar of SmartREIT has said, “the Buca name is a “huge signal” that Vaughan Metropolitan Centre has downtown credibility.” The goal of this development is to create an incredible city centre, as it is very much a blank slate. Construction is set to begin later in the year, or early 2018 with occupancy around 2020. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateApril 12, 2017June 19, 2020
Toronto City Council approves New Apartment Bylaw to Further Protect Tenants The City of Toronto recently passed a new bylaw aimed at cracking down on “bad” landlords and providing tenants with more protections. The bylaw, which was passed by the city council with a 41-1 vote, imposes a series of new regulations on landlords that will come into effect on July 1, 2017. The new rules will address tenant service requests, pest management, building repairs, and cleaning. The bylaw also imposes fines for violating these new rules. Councillor Josh Matlow, who has been a major supporter of the bylaw, describes the new rules as “a landmark tenant protection bylaw that is not only being celebrated by tenants across the city … but is even being talked about (in other cities) as a signal of how to do things right.” The new bylaw will cover about 3,500 buildings in the city, which is roughly 350,000 apartments. It does not, however, apply to all landlords in the city—it is mainly aimed at landlords that oversee large residential properties. The bylaw is only applicable to owners and building operators of a residential property with three or more storeys, and ten or more dwelling units available for rent. The protections will apply to Toronto Community Housing buildings, but long-term residences, such as retirement homes, will not be covered by the bylaw. Under the new rules, building owners must register with the city within three to four months of the bylaw coming into effect, and must re-register every year. The annual registration fee will cost $10.60 per unit. However, the fees will only apply to private buildings—co-op and social housing providers, like Toronto Community Housing buildings, will be exempt from paying the fee (but not registration itself). The program will cost about $5 million a year to implement and will be funded through a combination of registration fees (53%), enforcement action (12%), and property taxes (35%). Prior to the launch of the program, city staff will conduct inspections of the buildings and order repairs. These inspections will serve as a baseline assessment for future inspections. Tenant Service Requests The new bylaws implement strict requirements on landlords in responding to service requests. Urgent service requests must be responded to within 24 hours and non-urgent requests within 7 days. A request is considered urgent if it is related to the following vital services: fuel, electricity, gas, heat, or hot or cold water. Landlords must also implement a system for handling and tracking service requests, and demonstrate compliance with their own system. The system must provide tenants with a copy of their service request submissions upon receipt by the landlord. Infestations and Pest Management Landlords are required to take certain steps to prevent and deal with infestations. As a preventative measure, landlords must inspect indoor and outdoor common areas for pests every 30 days. If notified about the presence of pests in any part of a building, a landlord must inspect the area where the pests were discovered within 72 hours. The landlord is then required to eliminate or exterminate the pests and take adequate measures to prevent the pests from spreading to other parts of the property. Pest treatment operations must be performed by licensed exterminators. The new rules also require landlords to notify tenants of the presence of pests and pest treatment information. The information must include the date of treatment, the name of the licensed pest management company, and the nature of the treatment. The information must be available for display on a central communication board in the building. While the specific location of the treatment won’t be made available, treatment records relating to common areas must be made available to tenants and prospective tenants upon their request. Landlords are also prohibited under the bylaws from renting units with pest problems. Repairs and Service Disruptions Tenants will have to be notified of planned or unplanned service disruptions—including those involving heat, water, electricity, elevators, and security. Notification of the disruption will have to be placed on a central notification board and include information regarding the nature of the disruption, duration of the disruption, and the units affected by the disruption. Landlords will also have to create a capital repair plan that lists building elements and when they are scheduled to be replaced or upgraded. The following capital elements are required to be included in the plan: roof, elevators, facade, windows, mechanical systems, underground garage, interior flooring, interior wall finish, balcony guards, and handrails. When performing major capital projects, landlords must provide tenants with information regarding the nature and duration of the project and the affected units. Cleaning Under the new bylaws, landlords will have to inspect common areas for cleanliness at least once a day. Landlords will also have to create a cleaning plan that contains a list of common areas and how often these areas will be cleaned. The list must include the following (if present): garbage storage area; walls; floors; laundry room and equipment. Enforcement and Violation The Municipal Licensing and Standards division will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the new bylaws. Landlords that do not register under the program will not be permitted to rent units to new tenants until registration is complete. If landlords fail to comply with the new rules, they may be responsible for paying the costs of inspection ($108 an hour) or audit ($1,800). Landlords and building operators found guilty of violating the new regulations could be fined up to $100,000. Charges would be laid through the provincial offences court. The Municipal Licensing and Standards Committee is also considering extended fines for repeat offenders and special fines for those in contempt of the bylaws for the sake of economic gain. Enforcement of the bylaw is expected to begin in July 2018. Concern Among City Councillors Despite a near-unanimous vote, a few city councillors took issue with the new bylaw as being overly oppressive to landlords. Apartment buildings already face municipal property tax rates that are almost three times as high as what home and condominium owners are charged. Councillor John Campbell is concerned that good landlords will lose money just because of the actions of a few “bad apples.” Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti doesn’t think the city should be involved in monitoring landlords. Mammoliti is also concerned that the new regulations will scare off developers hoping to build more rental units. This could be problematic since Toronto is already facing a shortage of available rental units. These councillors also expressed concern that fees associated with the new bylaw could be passed on to tenants. However, this may be limited to smaller fees (such as the registration fee) as landlords will not be able to pass along the cost of capital repairs ordered by the city. The Residential Tenancies Act has clear language that landlords must absorb those expenses associated with compliance orders. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateMarch 31, 2017June 19, 2020
The Future of Canada Revenue Agency Enforcement Activities As noted in an earlier blog post, we discussed the joint CBC / Toronto Star investigation and subsequent release of the Panama Papers. In a subsequent Toronto Star article, the CRA states its intention to act more aggressively in pursuing those who commit tax fraud and tax evasion. Notable in its new aggressive stance, the CRA states in the Toronto Star article that those suspected of “aggressive tax avoidance or tax evasion” will be subject to more “severe consequences”, including “a lot more criminal investigations” and the fingerprinting of anyone charged with tax evasion. In Budget 2016, the Federal Government announced almost $500 million in additional funds to the CRA to assist it in its enforcement efforts. This money appears to have been immediately put to use by the CRA. The Toronto Star notes that “230 people have been added to the compliance department and lawyers are now being embedded in investigating teams”. The 2017 Federal Budget pledged an additional $1 billion to assist the CRA in its tax compliance efforts. The funds are being earmarked for increased investigative work, particularly in the “underground” economy, including construction and hospitality sectors, as well as to continue to develop computer programs, systems and algorithms to monitor and track high-risk potentially abusive transactions, such as international electronic funds transfers. Future targets include high net worth individuals who may utilize tax loopholes to gain what the CRA perceives as unfair tax advantages. The CRA has updated its website to prominently feature its efforts in cracking down on international tax evasion and tax avoidance. As part of the CRA’s efforts, they note that they have many tools at their disposal to combat tax evasion including: Reviewing Electronic Funds Transfers over $10,000 as they cross borders to and from Canada and studying specific offshore locations and certain financial institutions. Collaborating and sharing information with international partners such as the OECD’s Forum on Tax Administration and the Joint International Taskforce on Shared Intelligence and Collaboration; Identifying promoters of aggressive tax schemes; Identifying international non-compliance and abuses through its treaty networks; Creation of the Offshore Compliance Advisory Committee (OCAC), an independent advisory committee of experts which, on December 5, 2016, presented the CRA with the OCAC’s report on the Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP), with its recommendations to improve and enhance the VDP program; Combatting aggressive international tax avoidance strategies of multinational companies through the CRA’s participation in the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan and the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement; Encouraging Canadians to report tax avoidance through the Offshore Tax Informant Program; and Encouraging Canadians to use the VDP to voluntarily correct their tax reporting by correcting a previously filed return or reporting otherwise unreported income or property. We can help. Although most Canadian taxpayers are compliant, sometimes errors or omissions occur. It is still possible to take advantage of the CRA’s VDP to voluntarily report omitted or incorrectly reported tax filings while potentially avoiding penalties. Tax planning opportunities are available to assist Canadian taxpayers in optimizing their affairs to obtain a favourable tax outcome. Contact DSF’s Tax Planning Group for advice and assistance. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Planning and Development LawMarch 30, 2017June 19, 2020
Solving Ontario Court Delays: Is Limiting Preliminary Hearings The Answer? In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Jordan, there have been various suggestions on how to deal with the issue of delay in the Ontario courts. One such idea is that of Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi. It has been reported that the Attorney General recently wrote the Federal Justice Minister with a request to greatly limit the use of preliminary hearings in an attempt to speed up the justice system. For laypeople and those who do not practice criminal law this begs the questions – what is a preliminary hearing and what value does it provide the criminal justice system and those facing charges? The right to a preliminary hearing (or preliminary inquiry) and the procedure behind it arise out of Part XVIII of the Criminal Code. An accused can elect a preliminary inquiry but only in more serious cases where the charge(s) are proceeding by way of indictment. The main purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to determine whether there is enough evidence for an accused person to proceed to trial on those offences for which they have been charged. The preliminary inquiry itself is held before a Provincial Court Judge and the Crown (prosecutor) calls witnesses to testify along with any other evidence they require. In this respect, it is somewhat similar to a trial. However, rather than making a determination with respect to guilt or innocence, the Judge in a preliminary inquiry only has to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to a trial. The legal test is whether a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could return a verdict of guilt on the evidence presented. If the Judge is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence on any such charges then the accused is ordered to stand trial on those charges. If the Judge is not satisfied that the test has been met then the charges where there is insufficient evidence are dismissed. This legal test is a very easy test for the Crown to meet and as such most accused persons who elect a preliminary inquiry are ordered to stand trial. Despite the fact that most preliminary inquiries end with an accused headed towards trial, there are a number of reasons the prelim has value and is a useful tool in the criminal justice system. For all parties involved (prosecutor and defence), it helps to narrow the issues for criminal cases and in some cases, it gets rid of charges where there is insufficient evidence. From the perspective of criminal defence lawyers, a major value of the preliminary inquiry is that it provides those charged with serious offences a chance to fully discover the strength of the Crown’s case. While it has been argued that disclosure requirements on the Crown provide any and all needed discovery of the case, this disclosure cannot replace actually hearing from Crown witnesses and seeing the evidence in court. The preliminary inquiry provides a full opportunity for the accused to see how reliable and credible the evidence is against them. It also provides tactical opportunities such as obtaining possible admissions from witnesses or deciding whether there are legitimate grounds to proceed with a Charter argument. It is hard to see how limiting preliminary inquiries will significantly reduce any delay in the Ontario courts. One reason is that it appears they do not occur that often. A recent article in the Toronto Star dated March 20, 2017, quoted information from Stats Canada which outlined that preliminary inquiries were only requested or held in about 3 percent of completed adult criminal cases in 2014-2015. That statistic would seem to indicate that preliminary inquires are at most a small part of the delay problem. Fully addressing the delay in Ontario courts is likely going to require numerous changes, as well as the provision of resources in the form of more judges, prosecutors and other court staff. For more information on this matter, please review our previous blog post Delays in Our Ontario Civil Courts. If you require legal assistance, please contact our Criminal Law Lawyer David Schell, or call Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-449-1400 today. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal LawMarch 28, 2017June 19, 2020
Toronto Real Estate: Spring Update As the weather begins to get warmer and the daylight lasts longer, the real estate market will be getting busier. Since 2016, a number of cities in Canada have been dealing with an abundance of issues. For Toronto, it has been a shortage of supply, and the inability to afford what is available on the market as prices increase. Other cities around the country have been working on slowing price growth, while others are trying to recover from economic struggles in the housing sector. Each province has had to deal with their own economic and market-specific challenges through 2016 and the beginning of 2017. Focusing on the Golden Horseshoe (the Greater Toronto Area, Hamilton-Burlington, Oakville-Milton, Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Branford, the Niagara Region, Barrie, and nearby cottage country), the current trends in the real estate market look like they are here to stay, with the double-digit price growth. As a result, it will continue to limit the affordability of homes as well as the sales, seeing as there is no rise in the supply of homes. The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) believes this will continue to be the case in the Spring season. Government Involvement The provincial government has become pressured to step in, in order to assist in fixing these issues in the real estate market. They have a number of options to address home affordability, which can help young families achieve the dream of owning a home: Fix the Growth Plan – Allow flexibility and more choices for municipalities such as family homes and townhomes to assist growing families and empty nesters. Improve Planning Approval Processes – Align priorities. For example, updated zoning. Address “Missing Middle” Housing Supply – Modernization of zoning laws for the housing supply in established communities. Create solutions like laneway housing, multi-unit homes (townhouses, stacked flats, mid-rise buildings). Target Infrastructure to Support New Housing Supply – Support new housing supply and targeted infrastructure investments, making houses available for consumers. The OHBA and OREA have said to both agree that sustainable, long term solutions are necessary to the affordability issue, and it starts with increasing the housing supply. Both associations are appealing to the provincial government to take stock of the supply problem and to design solutions that will improve the affordability for all Ontarians. (Source: OREA Press Release) Foreign Buyers in Toronto & Vancouver As the reports have been in the past, there has been a strong presence of critics stating that foreign buyers are not an issue in Toronto. In 2016 foreign buyers were seen to only makeup around 4 – 5 percent of transactions, stating the tax on foreign purchases will not provide a long-term solution to Toronto’s supply problem. To make matters worse, the National Housing Strategy is a federal initiative that will be released this year to address issues in provincial and regional economies, and housing markets and conditions. Add this to the current issues at hand, and it continues to get more complex. Until then, the public hopes the 2017 budget will be looking to address some of these issues. There is hope that they will address and modify the Home Buyers’ Plan, but it is not likely that they will address the affordability of homes for first-time homebuyers. If you require any real estate assistance, please contact one of our Toronto Real Estate Lawyers today, or give us a call at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateMarch 28, 2017June 19, 2020
Paying Attention to Detail in Planning Policy A new report from the Neptis Foundation is raising questions about Ontario’s planning and development policy for Greater Golden Horseshoe. The report states that 26,100 acres of green land, never intended for development, are being built on in contravention to the goals of the 2006 Provincial policy, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GPGGH”). Saving money, helping the environment, and fostering more connected and better-funded communities – all were aims of GPGGH and its efforts to reduce sprawl and preserve green space in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The GPGGH set out to ensure that at least 40% of new development in small municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe is only built on lands allocated for density with pre-existing infrastructure. The GPGGH, which guides Ontario’s residential strategy for development and growth, draws a distinction between urban settlements, with full access to water and sewer systems, and isolated settlements that depend on communal wells and septic systems. The GPGGH made it a priority to concentrate growth in urban areas while limiting growth to isolated settlements without pre-existing infrastructure. The latest Neptis Foundation report demonstrates that due to what appears to be a drafting error, the GPGGH along with the 2008 Built Boundary document, has resulted in unintended consequences. As stated in the Neptis Foundation report: “The definition of the Designated Greenfield Area in the 2006 Growth Plan states, “Where a settlement area does not have a built boundary, the entire settlement area is considered designated greenfield area.” Meanwhile, Section 3 of the 2008 Built Boundary document states, “The built boundary consists of delineated and undelineated built-up areas.” This second definition allows for any development anywhere in a rural settlement, or UBUA [Undeliniated Build-Up Areas], to be counted as intensification, a stark contradiction of the definition in the 2006 Growth Plan.” Municipalities understood this to allow development anywhere in their jurisdiction under the criteria of intensification. In Simcoe County, for example, 65% of planned intensification took place in undelineated areas. As these new communities continue to grow, resources will need to be added such as community centres, schools etc., which will assist a limited number of people and divert resources away from the larger population. The Province wanted to increase development in areas that have room for density. This serves the purpose of establishing concentrated communities to better support both business initiatives in the area, while also facilitating greater access to transit, and community programs. A focus on denser urban development compared to rural growth is also substantially cheaper, as it is very costly to provide water and sanitation equipment to isolated settlements, far away from urban communities. Since the Neptis Foundation’s report, the Provincial government stated that they are aware of the issue, are in the process of reviewing the GPGGH, and further amendments are expected. If you need assistance navigating Ontario’s provincial policies regarding development and growth, are considering developing a piece of land, or have concerns about a development near you, Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Planning and Development Group can provide you with the guidance and support that you require. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Planning and Development LawMarch 27, 2017June 18, 2020
Internet and a Breakdown of Privacy: The New Era of Sexting and The Courts’ Response Technology undoubtedly has great power when a superpower nation’s diplomacy can be built on 15-second tweets. A one-second decision to share, send, or post can irreversibly release data within the rest of the world’s reach. That same one second can also change a person’s life forever in a terrifying and nightmarish way. In Jane Doe v N.D., a couple who formerly dated in high school and had broken up continued to communicate regularly by Internet, texting, and telephone, and continued to meet up occasionally. The defendant asked the plaintiff, who were both 18 at the time, repeatedly to make a sexually explicit video of herself to send to him. She refused, but he continued to probe and send her intimate pictures and videos of himself, pressuring her to do the same. Eventually, after the defendant promised that no one else would see the video, she relented and sent him an intimate video. Later that same day, the defendant posted the video on an internet pornography website and had shown it to mutual colleagues. The plaintiff sued under the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress, among other causes of action. There are three elements of the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress, as set out in Prinzo v Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care: (i) conduct that is flagrant and outrageous, (ii) conduct that is calculated to produce harm, and (iii) conduct that results in a visible and provable injury. Under flagrant and outrageous conduct, the court considers whether the defendant’s act constituted reckless disregard by examining whether or not mental distress or suffering would ensue from the defendant’s conduct. The court in Jane Doe v N.D. found that core examples of “flagrant or outrageous” behaviour include clear violation of promises made, and a breach of trust – a malicious purpose to cause harm or a motive of spite is not required for a finding of flagrant and outrageous conduct. The requirement that the conduct is calculated to produce harm is satisfied if the court finds it was clearly foreseeable that the conduct in question would cause the plaintiff profound distress. This test is met when the consequences or kind of harm are known to be substantially certain to follow. Finally, the third element of visible and provable injury includes both actual physical harm and also significant psychological harm, which does not require a medical expert if the court can be convinced of the plaintiff’s harm otherwise. In the Jane Doe v N.D. case, Justice Stinson of the Superior Court found that among others, the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress was made out. As a result, the plaintiff was awarded more than $140,000 in damages. However, the case did not just end there. Upon Justice Stinson’s decision, the defendant, who previously had not retained counsel, decided to retain counsel to set aside the judgment for a “do-over”. The defendant alleges that he could not afford a lawyer and that the denial of a second chance at re-litigating the case would equate to a denial of access to justice and cause serious prejudice towards him. Justice Dow of the Superior Court set aside the damages ordered by Justice Stinson in a ruling that has still not been released to the public. The plaintiff is now appealing this decision; if she is unsuccessful, she would be back at square one to re-litigate the same matters. For more information or any other questions regarding the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress, please contact our lawyers at https://devrylaw.ca/civil-litigation/. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, LitigationMarch 27, 2017June 18, 2020
Solving Toronto’s Housing Woes The Toronto real estate market has been a hot topic in the city for over a year now. Soaring house prices and limited supply has made it difficult for potential buyers to purchase a home within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Without a significant amount of money on reserve to look to for negotiations, you might as well count yourself out of the Toronto real estate market before you begin your search. Many homes in the GTA have gone for close $1 million over asking, due to realtors using a strategy where they list the home low in order to attract more buyers. Recently, a home in the Parkwoods-Donalda area of Don Mills was listed for $998,800 and sold after one weekend for $1.75 million, just over $750,000 above the asking price. Not too far away, another house located just off of the Bridle Path sold for $1.15 million over its asking price. Multiple research studies have been conducted and presented to the public to reinforce speculations of market experts. The consensus? Foreign investment is making the real estate market soar until new data was released stating foreign investment only made up approximately 4% of transactions in 2016. When Trump took over the oval office, everyone focused on how he could influence our markets, and as a result, there was a spike in residents of the United States searching for homes in Canada, with residents searching for family homes in the city of Toronto – rather than the typical search for a cottage out in Muskoka. Rising prices within the city means hopeful home buyers must look outside of the city if they want to get their hands on a home. Many cities surrounding Toronto have single family homes for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than those in the GTA, if you’re willing to commute to the city. Even if you decide to move out of Toronto, the prices may be cheaper, but their values are quickly rising as Toronto’s real estate increases in value. For example, moving as far as Brantford, ON you can currently find the average home price sitting around $400,000 (January 2017). However, Ryerson university recently released their opinion on the matter. An article by The Star titled “Foreign buyer tax alone won’t solve Toronto housing woes: report” discusses how Ryerson’s City Building Institute (RCBI) believes implementing just a foreign buyer tax will not be the thing that saves Toronto’s troubled housing market. They do support the tax on foreign investors, but outline there should be an additional tax. A tax they call a “progressive tax” on expensive homes, owned by people who aren’t paying income tax – including those with foreign capital. A different way to view this is, if you’re earning money in Canada and paying taxes, you are not subject to the tax. You may view Ryerson’s full report on the matter, “In High Demand” here. This report features many charts displaying income, home prices, supply elasticity, number of single-family homes built per year, etc. If you take a look at our previous blog “Affordable Single-Family Homes In Cities Other Than Toronto & Vancouver” there are a number of similarities with the comparisons made between Canadian cities which the RCBI explores in great depth. The soaring house prices has also meant many young adults have been forced to move back home. As a result, fewer houses are being put up for sale – as some people hold off selling because the prices are too high. If you sell your home, where will you go? What you sell your house for most likely will not land you in a bigger home, you may be forced to downgrade. In Toronto, people in their 20s are still living at home, a whopping 56.5 percent. With the high prices, many young adults are moving and/or living at home in order to save on some expenses, while saving up for a down payment on a home. There may be brighter days ahead, however. BMO says that Toronto is in a housing bubble and that desperate home buyers should take a two year break from their search, as prices will fall. With all of this speculation, data, research, and what has occurred with Toronto’s housing market – only time will tell. We’ll have to sit back, do what we believe is right and let it take course. There are too many factors out of one person’s control that can make a significant change and one action from one individual will influence the smallest percentage of change. If you are looking to sell or purchase a home and require a real estate lawyer, visit our Real Estate page to contact a lawyer today, or contact Devry Smith Frank LLP at (416) 449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Real EstateMarch 14, 2017June 18, 2020