Business Development Insurance Ltd. v. Caledon Mayfield Estates Inc.

Business Development Insurance Ltd. v. Caledon Mayfield Estates Inc.

The Court upheld the motions judge: the December 16 letter amounted to a demand to remove the CPL rather than a request to extend closing, time was of the essence, the respondents were entitled to rely on the annulment clause because there was no triable issue that they caused the title defect, and the unresolved action involving 207 did not preclude summary judgment; therefore the summary dismissal of the appellant's action was properly upheld.

Citation
2015 ONCA 864
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Business Development Insurance Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: Caledon Mayfield Estates Inc.; Respondent/defendant: Estate of Palmyra Kucinskaite by the Estate Trustees Constance Deltuvaite and Dana Dargis
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Appeal to Court of Appeal After Superior Court Granted Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Appellant's Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Annulment Clause, Time Is of the Essence, Caution, Certificate of Pending Litigation, Title Defects, Summary Judgment, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies Real Property Specific Performance Annulment Clause Time Is of the Essence +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Business Development Insurance Ltd.

Appellant/plaintiff

Caledon Mayfield Estates Inc.

Respondent/defendant

Estate of Palmyra Kucinskaite by the Estate Trustees Constance Deltuvaite and Dana Dargis

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Appeal to Court of Appeal After Superior Court Granted Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Appellant's Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a triable issue as to respondents' entitlement to rely on the Agreement's annulment clause
  2. 2 Whether respondents were the cause of the title problem that prevented closing
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's December 16 correspondence constituted a demand to remove the CPL or a request to extend closing

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the motions judge: the December 16 letter amounted to a demand to remove the CPL rather than a request to extend closing, time was of the essence, the respondents were entitled to rely on the annulment clause because there was no triable issue that they caused the title defect, and the unresolved action involving 207 did not preclude summary judgment; therefore the summary dismissal of the appellant's action was properly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment of the Superior Court upholding dismissal of the appellant's action is affirmed