Matthew Brady Self Storage Corporation v. InStorage Limited Partnership

Matthew Brady Self Storage Corporation v. InStorage Limited Partnership

The Court upheld the trial judge: Telford’s valuation did not contain a manifest error because the Put/Call Agreement required only that the income approach be given primary consideration not exclusive application and the appraiser reasonably rejected it; any procedural error in addressing manifest error mid-trial caused no prejudice; specific performance was properly granted because the transaction’s subject-matter made damages inadequate and the equities favoured the vendor; and the Rule 49 offer and the subsequent substantial indemnity costs award were properly considered and justified by the parties’ conduct, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2014 ONCA 858
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Matthew Brady Self Storage Corporation; Defendant/appellant: InStorage Limited Partnership; Defendant/appellant: InStorage Trustee Corp.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision Affirming Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in its entirety; trial orders affirmed; costs of appeal fixed in favour of respondent
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Valuation and Appraisal, Manifest Error Standard, Duty to Mitigate, Rule 49 Offers and Costs, Admissibility of Expert Opinion
Source Language
English
Contract Law Property Law Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure Costs Law Expert Evidence Specific Performance Valuation and Appraisal +4 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Brady Self Storage Corporation

Plaintiff/respondent

InStorage Limited Partnership

Defendant/appellant

InStorage Trustee Corp.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision Affirming Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appraiser committed a manifest error by not using the income approach and whether the trial judge erred procedurally by deciding manifest error mid-trial
  2. 2 Whether specific performance was available to the vendor and whether the vendor had a duty to mitigate by selling the property
  3. 3 Whether the Rule 49 offer was effective for costs despite informal service and whether substantial indemnity costs awarded were excessive or breached the 1.5 multiplier

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the trial judge: Telford’s valuation did not contain a manifest error because the Put/Call Agreement required only that the income approach be given primary consideration not exclusive application and the appraiser reasonably rejected it; any procedural error in addressing manifest error mid-trial caused no prejudice; specific performance was properly granted because the transaction’s subject-matter made damages inadequate and the equities favoured the vendor; and the Rule 49 offer and the subsequent substantial indemnity costs award were properly considered and justified by the parties’ conduct, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in its entirety; trial orders affirmed; costs of appeal fixed in favour of respondent

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Trial judgment affirmed including order for specific performance requiring InStorage to accept conveyance and to pay $7,300,000 to Matthew Brady