Prince Edward Holdings Inc. v. Jomar Holdings Ltd.

Prince Edward Holdings Inc. v. Jomar Holdings Ltd.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge: vendor's repeated failure to provide the mortgage documentation constituted prevention of the contemplated mortgage-back, permitting the purchaser to obtain his own financing and removing the contractual basis for a 9% interest charge; absent an enforceable contract rate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2000 NSCA 119
Parties
Appellant (vendor): Prince Edward Holdings Inc.; Respondent (purchaser): Jomar Holdings Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal — Civil (real Property / Contract) / Decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (appeal Heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Closing Adjustments, Pre Judgment Interest, Contract Interpretation, Mortgage Back Financing, Relocation of Utilities, Costs and Disbursements
Source Language
english
Real Property Contract Law Civil Procedure Remedies Interest Closing Adjustments Pre Judgment Interest Contract Interpretation +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prince Edward Holdings Inc.

Appellant (vendor)

Jomar Holdings Limited

Respondent (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Appeal — Civil (real Property / Contract) / Decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (appeal Heard and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchaser owed interest at 9% from date of occupancy/contract date where mortgage-back was contemplated but never completed
  2. 2 Appropriate period for pre-judgment interest given vendor's delay and conduct
  3. 3 Whether costs for relocating utilities fell within clause 5C and were deductible from purchase price

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge: vendor's repeated failure to provide the mortgage documentation constituted prevention of the contemplated mortgage-back, permitting the purchaser to obtain his own financing and removing the contractual basis for a 9% interest charge; absent an enforceable contract rate the legal rate (5%) applied; the trial judge properly interpreted clause 5C to include the disputed utility relocation costs and exercised sound discretion in awarding pre-judgment interest for the period from the scheduled closing to the date purchaser arranged financing; no reversible legal error was made.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment below upheld