Datta v. Eze

Datta v. Eze

The appeal was allowed in part because the motion judge failed to explain why the July 2020 sale price/appraisals for the replacement property were not used; this court recalculated damages using the July 2020 figures and awarded respondents $56,000. The court declined to entertain the deposit-return argument...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 ONCA 340
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: Parag Datta and Tandra Acharjee; Defendants/appellants: Okey Fabian Eze and Zachary Eze as Litigation Administrator for the Estate of Okey Eze
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (breach of Contract; Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance) / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Reference in Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance, Valuation Date for Damages, Return of Deposit, Summary Judgment, Reference, Admission of New Issues on Appeal
Source Language
english
Contract Law Real Property Equity Civil Procedure Appeal Law Specific Performance Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance Valuation Date for Damages +4 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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parag Datta and Tandra Acharjee

Plaintiffs/respondents

Okey Fabian Eze and Zachary Eze as Litigation Administrator for the Estate of Okey Eze

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (breach of Contract; Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance) / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Reference in Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents were entitled to specific performance or damages in lieu after accepting return of deposit
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge erred in using March 2020 appraisals instead of July 2020 appraisals or the actual sale price of the replacement property
  3. 3 Whether the appellants may raise a new issue on appeal that was not argued below

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because the motion judge failed to explain why the July 2020 sale price/appraisals for the replacement property were not used; this court recalculated damages using the July 2020 figures and awarded respondents $56,000. The court declined to entertain the deposit-return argument because it was not raised below and thus inappropriate to decide on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Respondents shall have judgment for this head of damages in the amount of $56,000.
  • Costs agreed by counsel.