Anna Wong

The defendants appealed a Master's decision refusing to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on their property.

The plaintiff had commenced an action for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's subsequent purchase of a nearby property negated the uniqueness of their property.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error of law in her assessment of uniqueness or her reliance on an affidavit from the plaintiff's ex-husband explaining the purpose of the second property.

The court concluded there remained a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the CPL.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for specific performance or damages after an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce what she claimed was a binding settlement agreement arising from correspondence between counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' letter did not contain a clear, unambiguous offer to settle the matter by selling the property at the original purchase price, but rather only offered a settlement payment in the alternative.