Avrum Slodovnik

The plaintiffs (Buyers) moved for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of a residential property against the defendants (Sellers).

The Sellers repudiated the agreement, claiming undue influence by their real estate agents (Third Parties).

The court found that the Sellers repudiated the agreement and the Buyers accepted it.

The court dismissed the Sellers' claim of undue influence or breach of confidential information as a basis to set aside the agreement, noting no knowledge by the Buyers.

The court determined the appropriate measure of damages was the difference between the purchase price and the market value on the assessment date, which was April 25, 2022, the date the Buyers could reasonably mitigate.

The court awarded the Buyers $525,000 in damages, plus increased borrowing costs and land transfer tax, but denied damages related to the sale of an investment property.

The third-party claim was bifurcated to be tried separately.

The plaintiffs moved under rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the defendants’ statement of defence for failing to comply with a prior disclosure order requiring unfettered access to financial and corporate records relevant to an accounting dispute arising from a failed cross‑border business venture.

The court found the defendants had not complied with the disclosure order and rejected their explanation that the plaintiffs had stolen the records.

The evidence demonstrated deliberate and ongoing non-compliance with multiple court orders and inadequate attempts to obtain documents within the defendants’ control.

Despite serious misconduct, the court declined to strike the defence immediately, emphasizing the preference for resolving disputes on their merits.

The defendants were instead ordered to conduct further searches and obtain records from all possible sources under strict timelines, failing which the plaintiffs could renew the motion to strike without notice.