4 total
Damages for a breached real estate contract are presumptively assessed at the date of breach.
This appeal concerned the appropriate measure of damages for a vendor's breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.
The appellant purchaser sought to recover the significant capital appreciation realized by the breaching vendor two and a half years after the breach, when the vendor resold the properties for $56 million more than the original contract price.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming the general principle that damages for breach of a real estate contract are assessed at the date of breach, unless the innocent party can demonstrate a later date is fair due to an inability to re-enter the market and mitigate.
The court found the appellant, a long-term investor, was not a speculator and failed to prove its loss or justify a departure from the date of breach.
The appeal on damages and costs was dismissed, as was the cross-appeal on costs thrown away.
Motion to strike oppression claim against directors denied; plaintiff had standing and sufficiently pleaded personal liability.
The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged oppression and breach of good faith by the individual directors and officers in relation to a share purchase agreement.
The defendants argued the plaintiff lacked standing as the conduct occurred before it became a shareholder, and that insufficient facts were pleaded to attract personal liability.
The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the plaintiff had standing as a beneficial shareholder and that the pleadings sufficiently alleged the defendants' personal involvement and benefit.
The court also granted the plaintiff's motion to consolidate the action with a related proceeding against the corporate defendants.
Purchaser awarded sunk costs but denied lost capital appreciation for vendor's breach of real estate contract.
The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for judgment against the defendant vendors for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for seven apartment buildings.
The defendants failed to discharge mortgages on title prior to closing, breaching the agreement.
The plaintiff sought damages for sunk costs and over $56 million for lost capital appreciation, based on the defendants' subsequent sale of the properties 2.5 years later.
The court awarded the sunk costs but dismissed the claim for lost profits, holding that damages must be assessed at the closing date and that the plaintiff, an international real estate investor, had mitigated its losses by deploying its funds elsewhere.
Summary judgment Action dismissed
The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to prevent their action from being dismissed for delay.
The motion was opposed by the Wong Defendants.
The court found an acceptable explanation for the delay concerning claims related to OM Policies, citing the plaintiffs' engagement in preliminary motions and settlement discussions with OM Financial Inc. However, the court found no acceptable explanation for the delay regarding claims related to PPI Policies, where no steps were taken for over 4.5 years and the Wong Defendants were the sole remaining defendants for those claims.
Consequently, the court ordered that the action proceed with respect to the OM Policies but dismissed the claims related to the PPI Policies, establishing a new timetable for the remaining litigation.
