D’Silva v. Algranti

D’Silva v. Algranti

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge reasonably found the severance condition was satisfied or waived by the sellers' lawyer's clear representation and by the sellers' conduct, the sellers breached their contractual duty to proceed diligently to obtain consents and therefore could not rely on the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2023 ONCA 758
Parties
Plaintiffs (respondents): Keith D’Silva and Esther D’Silva; Defendants (appellants): Louise Algranti and Selim Algranti
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Specific Performance of Agreement of Purchase and Sale / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Summary Judgment in Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment order for specific performance upheld; property remained transferred to respondents; costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Agreement of Purchase and Sale, Planning Act S.50(21), Severance/consent to Sever, Waiver, Estoppel, Title Objections, Summary Judgment
Source Language
english
Property Law Contract Law Real Estate Conveyancing Planning Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Agreement of Purchase and Sale Planning Act S.50(21) +5 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith D’Silva and Esther D’Silva

Plaintiffs (respondents)

Louise Algranti and Selim Algranti

Defendants (appellants)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Specific Performance of Agreement of Purchase and Sale / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Summary Judgment in Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the APS terminated on November 5, 2020 for failure to give notice of consent to sever under Schedule B
  2. 2 Whether the APS terminated on December 22, 2020 under the parties' "finality" clause because the Planning Act condition was not met
  3. 3 Whether the sellers were estopped or had waived the Schedule B condition by their lawyer's representations and conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge reasonably found the severance condition was satisfied or waived by the sellers' lawyer's clear representation and by the sellers' conduct, the sellers breached their contractual duty to proceed diligently to obtain consents and therefore could not rely on the finality clause to terminate the APS, and the buyers validly waived title objections and were entitled to specific performance; no reversible legal or factual error was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment order for specific performance upheld; property remained transferred to respondents; costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs payable by the appellants to the respondents