Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited v. Brampton (City)
Because the Subdivision Agreement did not include a reconveyance condition or time limit for Block 203, the transfer conveyed no retained interest to the appellant and therefore no entitlement to compensation under the agreement, resulting trust or unjust enrichment; the application judge's factual findings and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 457
- Parties
- Applicant (appellant): Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited; Respondent: The Corporation of the City of Brampton
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 May 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order (2017 ONSC 6178)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Subdivision Agreement, Conveyance, Condition/reconveyance Clause, Resulting Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Costs Assessment, Appellate Deference
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited
Applicant (appellant)
The Corporation of the City of Brampton
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order (2017 ONSC 6178)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Block 203 was conveyed to the City subject to an obligation to use it as a road and to reconvey it if not used
- 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under the Subdivision Agreement, resulting trust or unjust enrichment
- 3 Whether the costs award was excessive and whether failure to disclose detailed dockets warranted an adverse inference
Ratio Decidendi
Because the Subdivision Agreement did not include a reconveyance condition or time limit for Block 203, the transfer conveyed no retained interest to the appellant and therefore no entitlement to compensation under the agreement, resulting trust or unjust enrichment; the application judge's factual findings and costs decision were reasonable and entitled to deference.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to respondent in the amount of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited v. Brampton (City) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-05-16 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 457 Docket numbers C64607 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; Roberts, Lois B.; Fairburn, J. Michal Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited v. Brampton (City), 2018 ONCA 457 DATE: 20180516 DOCKET: C64607 Rouleau, Roberts and Fairburn JJ.A. BETWEEN Di Battista Gambin Developments Limited Applicant (Appellant) and The Corporation of the City of Brampton Respondent Robert D. Malen, for the appellant Signe Leisk and Melissa Winch, for the respondent Heard and released orally: May 10, 2018 On appeal from the order of Justice Thomas A. Bielby of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 17, 2017, with reasons reported at 2017 ONSC 6178. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant submits that the application judge erred in his interpretation of the Subdivision Agreement. He ought to have found that Block 203, the land parcel in issue, had been conveyed to the City on condition that it be used as a road. The appellant maintains that should Block 203 now, some 20 years later, not be used for that intended purpose, it is entitled to compensation. [2] We disagree. [3] The Subdivision Agreement provides for the transfer to the respondent of several land parcels for various purposes such as park land and roads. In the case of some of these parcels, the Subdivision Agreement imposes a condition to the effect that the respondent must reconvey it to the appellant if, within 15 years following signature of the agreement, the parcel is not used for the intended purpose. No such condition is attached to Block 203. [4] The application judge, reading the agreement as a whole, concluded that in the absence of any limit on the respondent’s ability to deal with Block 203, the appellant retained no interest in it. Should the respondent not use the property for the originally intended purpose, the appellant has no legal entitlement to be compensated, be it pursuant to the agreement, resulting trust or unjust enrichment. [5] In our view, there was ample evidence to support the application judge’s factual findings. His interpretation of the agreement was reasonable and we see no basis to interfere. [6] The appellant also seeks to appeal the order as to costs on the basis that the application judge ought to have drawn a negative inference because the respondent did not disclose its detailed dockets. Rather, the respondent only disclosed a summary of the hours and work done. The appellant further submits that the award of $53,667 was excessive and the amount awarded should be reduced. [7] We disagree. The application judge felt that he had sufficient evidence upon which to arrive at an appropriate costs award. That decision is entitled to deference and we find no error in the award made. [8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “L.B. Roberts J.A.” “Fairburn J.A.”