This appeal concerned the interpretation of an agreement of purchase and sale with an ambiguity regarding the calculation of the purchase price, which included Harmonized Sales Tax (HST).
The appellant vendor sought payment of remaining escrow funds.
The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by failing to properly interpret the agreement according to the principles of contractual interpretation and by relying on inadmissible expert appraisal evidence.
The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment and costs order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different judge.
The cross-appeal was not addressed.
