The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for summary judgment seeking return of deposits and due diligence costs arising from a failed real estate transaction for development land.
The purchaser alleged the vendor breached an environmental provision in the agreement of purchase and sale relating to hazardous substances and noise contamination guidelines.
The vendor argued the provision constituted a warranty rather than a condition and that the purchaser’s refusal to close constituted default resulting in forfeiture of the deposits.
The court held that several genuine issues requiring a trial remained, including interpretation of the contractual provision, the meaning of municipal correspondence concerning application of environmental noise guidelines, proof of damages, and the availability of relief from forfeiture.
Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.
