11970593 Canada Inc. v. Freeman

11970593 Canada Inc. v. Freeman

Claimant failed to present evidence that could, on a balance of probabilities and accepted as true, lead to a finding for the claimant on any head of damage; roof defects were not a fundamental term excusing closing, claimant's failure to close breached the time‑is‑of‑the‑essence clause and constituted repudiation entitling defendants to treat the PSA as terminated and to forfeit the deposit, therefore nonsuit and dismissal were appropriate.

Citation
2021 NSSM 51
Parties
Claimant: 11970593 Canada Inc.; Claimant: LJ Homefinders and Property Management Inc.; Defendant: Jennifer Freeman; Defendant: Deryk Freeman
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Breach of Contract/real Property / Motion for Nonsuit at Close of Claimant's Case; Final Decision Granting Nonsuit
Outcome
Defendants' motion for nonsuit granted; claim dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Repudiation, Forfeiture of Deposit, Time Is of the Essence, Nonsuit Standard, Remoteness of Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Real Property Civil Procedure Remedies Repudiation Forfeiture of Deposit Time Is of the Essence Nonsuit Standard +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

11970593 Canada Inc.

Claimant

LJ Homefinders and Property Management Inc.

Claimant

Jennifer Freeman

Defendant

Deryk Freeman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Breach of Contract/real Property / Motion for Nonsuit at Close of Claimant's Case; Final Decision Granting Nonsuit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant proved entitlement to return of the deposit
  2. 2 Whether the claimant repudiated the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by failing to close
  3. 3 Whether alleged roof repairs constituted a fundamental breach excusing non‑performance

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to present evidence that could, on a balance of probabilities and accepted as true, lead to a finding for the claimant on any head of damage; roof defects were not a fundamental term excusing closing, claimant's failure to close breached the time‑is‑of‑the‑essence clause and constituted repudiation entitling defendants to treat the PSA as terminated and to forfeit the deposit, therefore nonsuit and dismissal were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Defendants' motion for nonsuit granted; claim dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • Nonsuit granted
  • Claim dismissed in its entirety