2329131 Ontario Inc. v. Carlyle Development Corp.

2329131 Ontario Inc. v. Carlyle Development Corp.

The motion judge correctly concluded there were no genuine issues requiring a trial because the appellants were not ready to close on the asserted date and had not taken the necessary steps to reinstate or rely on a "time is of the essence" provision; accordingly summary judgment and specific performance were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 ONCA 132
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): 2329131 Ontario Inc.; Plaintiff (respondent): 2327451 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (appellant): Carlyle Development Corp.; Defendant (appellant): Carlyle Consolidated Holdings Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Superior Court Judgment on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Specific Performance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Time Is of the Essence, Summary Judgment, Waiver, Conditions Precedent to Closing, Escrow
Source Language
english
Civil Contract Property Specific Performance Time Is of the Essence Summary Judgment Waiver Conditions Precedent to Closing +1 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

2329131 Ontario Inc.

Plaintiff (respondent)

2327451 Ontario Inc.

Plaintiff (respondent)

Carlyle Development Corp.

Defendant (appellant)

Carlyle Consolidated Holdings Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Superior Court Judgment on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Specific Performance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge made palpably wrong factual inferences
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment and specific performance were appropriate without a trial
  3. 3 Whether the "time is of the essence" clause was waived or could be reinstated

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly concluded there were no genuine issues requiring a trial because the appellants were not ready to close on the asserted date and had not taken the necessary steps to reinstate or rely on a "time is of the essence" provision; accordingly summary judgment and specific performance were appropriate and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order for partial summary judgment and specific performance below affirmed