Savo v. Moursalien

Savo v. Moursalien

The motion judge's factual findings that the seller failed to disclose a second TCPL easement and related litigation — breaching the APS requirement that title be free of unlisted restrictions — and that the APS did not require the purchaser to sign the TCPL agreement, justified the purchaser's refusal to complete and entitled him to return of the $50,000 deposit; the appellate court found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
2018 ONCA 981
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Michael Savo; Defendant (respondent): Rasheed Moursalien
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Easement Disclosure, Agreement of Purchase and Sale, Return of Deposit, Breach of Contract, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Easement Disclosure Agreement of Purchase and Sale Return of Deposit Breach of Contract +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Savo

Plaintiff (appellant)

Rasheed Moursalien

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seller's non-disclosure of a second easement and related litigation breached the APS requiring title free of unlisted restrictions
  2. 2 Whether purchaser was required by the APS to sign a separate agreement with TCPL
  3. 3 Whether purchaser was entitled to refuse to complete and recover the $50,000 deposit

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge's factual findings that the seller failed to disclose a second TCPL easement and related litigation — breaching the APS requirement that title be free of unlisted restrictions — and that the APS did not require the purchaser to sign the TCPL agreement, justified the purchaser's refusal to complete and entitled him to return of the $50,000 deposit; the appellate court found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment upheld

Orders

  • Summary judgment affirmed ordering return of $50,000 deposit with interest
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST