The plaintiff, Musab Saeed, sought specific performance and declarations after a property transaction failed and the vendors sold to other purchasers.
The vendor defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the specific performance claim, arguing the property was not unique and damages were an adequate remedy.
The purchaser defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the entire claim against them, relying on the Land Titles Act and the mirror principle.
The court found the property was not unique, damages were an adequate remedy, and the plaintiff's claim of intending to reside there was not credible.
The court also found that only actual notice of a defect in title, not constructive knowledge or wilful blindness, would be an exception to the mirror principle under the Land Titles Act, and the purchasers did not have actual notice.
Both motions were granted, dismissing the specific performance claim and the action against the purchaser defendants.
