The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their action for the return of a $10,000 deposit on a pre-construction condominium.
The vendor had unilaterally relocated the furnace to the front hall closet, rendering it virtually useless.
The Divisional Court found the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by focusing on the wrong closet.
Drawing its own inferences of fact, the court held that the relocation of the furnace constituted a fundamental change to the agreement of purchase and sale, entitling the appellants to rescind the contract and recover their deposit.
