Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court ordered release of a $50,000 real estate deposit to the sellers, rejecting the buyers’ claims for frustration of contract and relief from forfeiture.
In this CCAA proceeding, the court ordered Mercury Merchant LLC to post $75,000 security for costs, stayed its deposit application, and provided for automatic dismissal if security is not posted.
The court held the defendant’s failure to close a residential purchase was a breach, not frustration, despite an insurance moratorium, and ordered forfeiture of the deposit.
The motion judge correctly applied the Redstone framework; relief from forfeiture is discretionary and not precluded merely because the purchaser contributed to the breach. On the facts—vendor sophistication, purchaser's vulnerability, vendor's misleading conduct and lack of loss—the retention of the deposit would be unconscionable, so the deposit must be returned; appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
The motion judge correctly applied the Stockloser two-part test, assumed disproportionate forfeiture but found no unconscionability because the APS was negotiated at arms-length, there was no inequality of bargaining power, the appellant manifested intent to complete, and no credible evidence of incapacity; the fresh medical evidence was not admitted and would not have shown incapacity; therefore the forfeiture of the $70,000 deposit stands and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court corrected the Registrar’s accounting, denied a further adjournment, and entered judgment for the defendants for $216,000 plus special costs.
The appellants failed to adduce evidence of an oral agreement or of market value at the date of breach; the respondent complied with the Agreement and reasonably mitigated by reselling the property for $1.5M consistent with comparable sales; damages are the difference between the original contract price and the actual resale price; therefore summary judgment and the damages award were properly upheld.
Source excerpt
The court held all disputed farmland encumbrances were permitted under clause 22, found Crown Fortune breached by refusing to close, and awarded Bonnefield the $1,000,000 deposit.
La Cour a rejeté la demande de contrôle judiciaire et confirmé comme raisonnables le refus de transférer et de prolonger un permis forestier de catégorie 2.
The court held the defendants did not prove any binding oral modification to a written townhouse purchase agreement and allowed the plaintiff to keep the deposit and recover unpaid rent.
Explore more
