Two appeals were heard together from summary judgment dismissing actions arising out of agreements of purchase and sale.
The appellate court held the motions judge erred by characterizing the issue of whether a condition precedent had been fulfilled within a reasonable time as a question of law under rule 20.04(4).
That issue was one of fact and constituted a genuine issue for trial.
The motions had been narrowly framed around whether the agreements created valid equitable interests in land or offended s. 50 of the Planning Act.
Both appeals were allowed, the judgments were set aside, and the actions were ordered to proceed to trial, with costs in the cause.
