Baron v. Palombo

Baron v. Palombo

The trial judge properly found the municipal building permit condition was not satisfied, the appellant proceeded independently and increased the scope and cost of works, and setbacks and coverage issues were difficult to overcome; any lack of cooperation by the respondent had no practical effect, so the appellant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C34098
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Gordon Baron; Defendant/respondent: Fausto Palombo; Defendant/respondent: Pal-Bac Developments (River Ridge) Limited
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on damages claim; appeal allowed as to return of deposit; judgment for appellant for deposit with interest; no costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Building Permit Condition, Conditions Precedent, Minor Variance, Return of Deposit
Source Language
english
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Building Permit Condition Conditions Precedent Minor Variance Return of Deposit

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Baron

Plaintiff/appellant

Fausto Palombo

Defendant/respondent

Pal-Bac Developments (River Ridge) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether vendor was entitled to terminate due to failure to obtain municipal building permit
  2. 2 Whether vendor, who owned the land, failed to take reasonable steps to secure a minor variance or otherwise obtain permit approval
  3. 3 Whether appellant could obtain specific performance despite non-conforming plans

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly found the municipal building permit condition was not satisfied, the appellant proceeded independently and increased the scope and cost of works, and setbacks and coverage issues were difficult to overcome; any lack of cooperation by the respondent had no practical effect, so the appellant was not entitled to specific performance but was entitled to return of his $20,000 deposit with interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on damages claim; appeal allowed as to return of deposit; judgment for appellant for deposit with interest; no costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed on issue of damages for breach of contract
  • Appeal allowed with respect to return of deposit