Riegel v. Paraskevopoulos

Riegel v. Paraskevopoulos

The court found the plaintiffs breached s.16(1) REDMA by failing to provide purchasers with the corrected amended disclosure within a reasonable time after filing; under s.23 this rendered the March 27, 2008 contract unenforceable and entitled the defendants to return of their deposit. Alternatively, the court held that plaintiffs, having elected to keep the contract alive after an anticipatory breach, failed to be ready to complete and therefore could not retain the deposit.

Citation
2013 BCSC 335
Parties
Plaintiffs: Rosswell Allyn Riegel and Suzanne Tarnow Riegel; Defendants: John Paraskevopoulos and Jennifer Huisman
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute (commercial Strata Sale) Summary Trial Under Rule 9 7 / Reasons for Judgment on Summary Trial Application (in Chambers)
Outcome
Declaration that the contract is unenforceable under s.23 REDMA; deposit returned to defendants; costs to defendants on scale of ordinary difficulty.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Statements Under REDMA, Rescission, Anticipatory Breach, Return of Deposit, Enforceability of Contract
Source Language
English
Real Estate Law Contract Law Consumer Protection/statutory Disclosure Equitable Remedies Disclosure Statements Under REDMA Rescission Anticipatory Breach Return of Deposit +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosswell Allyn Riegel and Suzanne Tarnow Riegel

Plaintiffs

John Paraskevopoulos and Jennifer Huisman

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute (commercial Strata Sale) Summary Trial Under Rule 9 7 / Reasons for Judgment on Summary Trial Application (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether developer breached s.16(1) of the Real Estate Development Marketing Act by failing to provide an amendment to the disclosure statement within a reasonable time after filing
  2. 2 Whether, under s.23 REDMA, such a breach renders the contract unenforceable and requires return of the deposit
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs' election to keep the contract alive after defendants' anticipatory breach, and subsequent failure to be ready to complete, disentitles plaintiffs from retaining the deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiffs breached s.16(1) REDMA by failing to provide purchasers with the corrected amended disclosure within a reasonable time after filing; under s.23 this rendered the March 27, 2008 contract unenforceable and entitled the defendants to return of their deposit. Alternatively, the court held that plaintiffs, having elected to keep the contract alive after an anticipatory breach, failed to be ready to complete and therefore could not retain the deposit.

Court Disposition

Declaration that the contract is unenforceable under s.23 REDMA; deposit returned to defendants; costs to defendants on scale of ordinary difficulty.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Contract of Purchase and Sale dated March 27, 2008 is unenforceable against the purchasers under s.23 of the Real Estate Development Marketing Act
  • Order that the plaintiff return the deposit of $45,000.00 to the defendants