The plaintiffs brought an action against the estate of their 'grandfather' figure, Gus Sorkos, seeking to enforce an oral agreement made in 1985.
Under the agreement, the plaintiffs provided unpaid labour to maintain the deceased's farm and cottage properties for over 25 years in exchange for his promise to leave them the properties in his will.
The deceased later changed his will, leaving the properties to others.
The court found the oral agreement was corroborated by third-party witnesses and a prior will.
The court held that the plaintiffs' acts of part performance took the agreement outside the Statute of Frauds and applied the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, finding it would be unconscionable to deny the plaintiffs the properties after they had detrimentally relied on the deceased's promises.
The estate was ordered to convey the properties to the plaintiffs.
