D'Angelo v. Three Lions Developments Ltd.

D'Angelo v. Three Lions Developments Ltd.

Applicant satisfied hardship branch but failed second branch: it was not plain and obvious plaintiffs would not succeed at trial because the property is unique and the HPA does not automatically invalidate the purchase agreement; thus CPL should remain to preserve plaintiffs' triable claim for specific performance.

Citation
2021 BCSC 1363
Parties
Plaintiff: Flora D'Angelo; Plaintiff: Beverly Gaudette; Defendant: Three Lions Developments Ltd.; Defendant: Paul Cope; Defendant: John Michael Wallden
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance Action (real Property) / Interim Application to Remove Certificate of Pending Litigation
Outcome
Application dismissed; Certificate of Pending Litigation remains registered
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Certificate of Pending Litigation, Homeowner Protection Act S.22, Uniqueness of Property, Mortgage Foreclosure and Redemption, Order Nisi
Source Language
English
Property Law Real Property Contract Law Equity Land Titles Consumer Protection Foreclosure Specific Performance +5 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flora D'Angelo

Plaintiff

Beverly Gaudette

Plaintiff

Three Lions Developments Ltd.

Defendant

Paul Cope

Defendant

John Michael Wallden

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance Action (real Property) / Interim Application to Remove Certificate of Pending Litigation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Certificate of Pending Litigation should be removed in exchange for cash security
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown hardship and inconvenience more than trifling
  3. 3 Whether it is plain and obvious that the plaintiffs will not succeed on a claim for specific performance

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant satisfied hardship branch but failed second branch: it was not plain and obvious plaintiffs would not succeed at trial because the property is unique and the HPA does not automatically invalidate the purchase agreement; thus CPL should remain to preserve plaintiffs' triable claim for specific performance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Certificate of Pending Litigation remains registered

Orders

  • Application by John Michael Wallden to cancel the Certificate of Pending Litigation dismissed
  • Costs awarded in the cause