The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their claim arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement to purchase their waterfront property.
The property was re-sold at a lower price, and the plaintiffs sought damages for the price differential and increased commission costs.
The defendants disputed the damages and argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their losses.
The court determined the proper assessment date for damages was the date of the new agreement of purchase and sale (APS), and found the re-sale price to be prima facie evidence of market value.
The court concluded that the defendants failed to meet their onus to prove the plaintiffs did not take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages.
Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $358,900.00, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.
