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 found a binding contract for Unit 37 arose when Retire West sent the February 8, 2022 contract and note, and the plaintiffs signed and returned them.
The Court of Appeal held the settlement implied a mutual release, but neither side was ready and willing to complete, so repudiation was not established.
The timing clauses were fundamental and the claimant did not consent to an extension beyond May 23, 2024; the claimant validly terminated the contract for delay and the defendants failed to prove part performance or a legal basis to retain the remaining deposit, therefore $615.29 must be returned to the claimant.
Source excerpt
The July 21, 2023 unprecedented rainstorm materially altered the property such that the Defendant could not convey the house in the condition contracted for and the parties made no provision for such an event; the contract was therefore frustrated, excusing both parties from performance and entitling the Claimant to the return of his deposit and costs; the Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the appeal: buyers' financing failure constituted an anticipatory breach, sellers pressed for performance and were ready, willing and able to close by the deadline, buyers failed to close and sellers validly terminated the APS; the $50,000 deposit forfeiture was not unconscionable and relief from forfeiture was properly refused.
Source excerpt
The court held the $250,000 deposit was forfeited to the vendor after the purchaser failed to complete a hotel property sale and did not validly rely on the franchise issue.
Summary trial in a land-sale dispute was dismissed because key facts were contested and credibility had to be tested at trial; the CPL was maintained.
The court held the completion date moved to March 29, 2016, found no anticipatory breach by the defendant, and held both parties were in default so the contract remained alive.
Court of Appeal upheld specific performance of a residential sale, finding the deposit was reasonably paid, the vendors had repudiated, and time was not of the essence.
Ricki’s provided an altered estoppel certificate and delayed delivery of a correct one, conduct that precluded reliance on time being of the essence; Fortress was ready, willing and able to close but for Ricki’s misconduct, summary judgment was proper, and the proposed fresh evidence would not have altered the outcome; therefore the order for specific performance was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
