The Neigbourhoods of Cornell Inc. v. 1440106 Ontario Inc.

The Neigbourhoods of Cornell Inc. v. 1440106 Ontario Inc.

The motions judge correctly granted summary judgment because there was no genuine issue for trial: essential terms (notably the CSA obligations) remained unresolved so no oral agreement was established; there was no sufficient writing under the Statute of Frauds and no part performance; Libfeld's affidavit was properly characterized as self‑serving and insufficient to create a triable issue.

Citation
C40522
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): The Neighbourhoods of Cornell Inc.; Defendant (respondent): 1440106 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Samuel Lam; Defendant (respondent): Peter Wong
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (superior Court of Justice) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Statute of Frauds S.4, Part Performance, Summary Judgment Test, Oral Agreement for Sale of Land, Costs
Source Language
English
Property Contract Civil Procedure Equity Specific Performance Statute of Frauds S.4 Part Performance Summary Judgment Test +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Neighbourhoods of Cornell Inc.

Plaintiff (appellant)

1440106 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Samuel Lam

Defendant (respondent)

Peter Wong

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (superior Court of Justice) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an enforceable oral agreement existed for sale of land
  2. 2 Whether essential terms (including the Cost Sharing Agreement and Developer Charge Credits) were unresolved
  3. 3 Whether there was a sufficient written note or memorandum under s.4 of the Statute of Frauds

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge correctly granted summary judgment because there was no genuine issue for trial: essential terms (notably the CSA obligations) remained unresolved so no oral agreement was established; there was no sufficient writing under the Statute of Frauds and no part performance; Libfeld's affidavit was properly characterized as self‑serving and insufficient to create a triable issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to respondents on a partial indemnity basis fixed at 40000 CAD