Royal LePage Atlantic v. Ross

Royal LePage Atlantic v. Ross

The BDBA signed electronically by Mr. Ross was binding because he could have and should have read the documents and non est factum does not apply; however the claimant is not entitled to commission because Mrs. Gersovitz Ross, not Mr. Ross, purchased the Inglewood Property and there is no evidence of collusion or that the purchase was driven by Mr. Ross's agency relationship.

Citation
2022 NSSM 14
Parties
Claimant: Royal LePage Atlantic/Atlantic Real Estate Services Limited; Claimant: Jessica Margolian; Defendant: Jonathan D. Ross
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Final Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed in its entirety
Legal Topics
Buyer Designated Brokerage Agreement, Non Est Factum, Agency Commission, Electronic Signatures, Exclusive Agency
Source Language
English
Contract Real Property Agency Civil Procedure Buyer Designated Brokerage Agreement Non Est Factum Agency Commission Electronic Signatures +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal LePage Atlantic/Atlantic Real Estate Services Limited

Claimant

Jessica Margolian

Claimant

Jonathan D. Ross

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Buyer Designated Brokerage Agreement (BDBA) signed by Mr. Ross is enforceable against him
  2. 2 Whether the defence of non est factum applies to void the BDBA
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Ross or his wife purchased the Inglewood Property and who is liable for the commission

Ratio Decidendi

The BDBA signed electronically by Mr. Ross was binding because he could have and should have read the documents and non est factum does not apply; however the claimant is not entitled to commission because Mrs. Gersovitz Ross, not Mr. Ross, purchased the Inglewood Property and there is no evidence of collusion or that the purchase was driven by Mr. Ross's agency relationship.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in its entirety

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in its entirety
  • Judgment for the Defendant; no costs awarded