The moving parties, purchasers of condominium units, brought a motion seeking a declaration that the court-appointed receiver had no right to charge a 'parks levy' as an adjustment on the closing of their units.
The receiver argued that the contractual provision allowed it to charge the purchasers for the notional value of parkland conveyed to the municipality.
The court found that the contractual language was ambiguous and, applying the principles of contractual interpretation and contra proferentem in the context of a consumer contract, ruled in favour of the purchasers.
The receiver was ordered to repay the parks levy amounts with interest.
