The appellant appealed a motion judge's interpretation of a consent order regarding the sale of a jointly owned property.
The motion judge interpreted the order as giving the respondent the election to either sell the property to a third party or acquire the appellant's interest directly, rather than requiring an open market sale where the respondent would have to bid.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's interpretation of the consent order was reasonable, made sound commercial sense given the breakdown of the parties' relationship, and was entitled to deference.
