Steve Wong Real Estate Limited v. Stockton & Bush Acquisition Corp.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge reasonably found there was no agreement obliging the respondent to pay any further commission — a conclusion supported by the finding that the three flips were part of one transaction and the respondent's refusal to sign a finder's fee agreement; that single factual...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C36373
- Parties
- Appellant: Steve Wong Real Estate Limited; Respondent: Stockton & Bush Acquisition Corp.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Commission, Finders' Fee, Agreement Formation, Offer Under S.23(b) REBBA, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Steve Wong Real Estate Limited
Appellant
Stockton & Bush Acquisition Corp.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was an agreement obliging the respondent to pay a commission to the appellant
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in treating three property flips as part of one transaction and in his commission calculation
- 3 Whether any fiduciary duty or the definition of "offer" under s.23(b) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act affected the outcome
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge reasonably found there was no agreement obliging the respondent to pay any further commission — a conclusion supported by the finding that the three flips were part of one transaction and the respondent's refusal to sign a finder's fee agreement; that single factual conclusion disposed of the appeal so collateral statutory and fiduciary issues were not decided.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to respondent on a partial indemnity scale
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Steve Wong Real Estate Limited v. Stockton & Bush Acquisition Corp. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2002-09-12 Docket numbers C36373 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Rosenberg, Marc; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20020912 DOCKET: C36373 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: STEVE WONG REAL ESTATE LIMITED (Appellant) - and - STOCKTON & BUSH ACQUISITION CORP. (Respondent) BEFORE: WEILER, ROSENBERG and FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: Joyce Harris, for the appellant Morris Cooper, for the respondent HEARD: SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 ENDORSEMENT [1] In spite of the excellent submissions made by Ms. Harris on behalf of the appellant, we are not persuaded that the trial judge erred in concluding that there was no agreement between the appellant and the respondent whereby the respondent agreed to pay a commission to the appellant. [2] From the reasons of the trial judge, it is apparent that he concluded that the three “flips” of the property were all part of one transaction under which the appellant earned a commission of $210,000. At paragraph 34 of his reasons he stated: The plaintiff well knew that in order for him to earn the $375,000, or as it turned out $210,000, commission, there had to be a completed sale of the subject property which, in the circumstances, required the defendant to complete the purchase of that property. [3] Based on that finding, as well as the refusal of the defendant to sign an agreement to pay a finder’s fee, it was open for the trial judge to conclude that the defendant had not agreed to pay the plaintiff any further amount for commission to facilitate the transaction. [4] As that conclusion is sufficient to dispose of the appeal, it is not necessary for the court to comment on the fiduciary duty issue or the definition of “offer” in s. 23(b) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. [5] On that basis, the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale. If the costs of the appeal cannot be agreed upon, the respondent shall submit a bill of costs within 7 days with any brief submissions, and the appellant shall provide any responding submissions within 5 days thereafter. Signed: K. M. Weiler J.A.” _____ “K. Feldman J.A.” _____ “Mr. Rosenberg J.A.”