The appeal arose from a trial judgment rescinding an agreement of purchase and sale for vacant land marketed as a residential building lot when the vendors knew that obtaining a building permit was uncertain at best.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the purchasers reasonably relied on misrepresentations that the property was a building lot and that obtaining a permit would not be a problem.
The court rejected the argument that the statements concerned only a future event, holding that the representation related to an existing fact about the nature of the property.
Leave to appeal costs was granted on the cross-appeal, but the costs appeal was dismissed and the trial costs award on a party-and-party basis was left undisturbed.
