2 total
The Court of Appeal upheld an order for specific performance, finding the parties' conduct established a binding real estate contract despite late acceptance.
The appellants appealed a Superior Court judgment that found a binding agreement for the purchase and sale of their Brampton home and ordered specific performance.
The appellants argued the application judge erred in concluding there were no material facts in dispute, that the respondents' offer was null and void, and that there was no evidence supporting a finding of counteroffer.
The Court of Appeal rejected all arguments, finding that the appellants' signing and returning of the offer, combined with subsequent conduct consistent with a binding agreement (accepting a deposit cheque and restricting home revisits to those permitted by the offer terms), established a binding contract.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.
Landlord's appeal dismissed; tenant entitled to full replacement value for goods trashed by landlord.
The landlord appealed a decision awarding the tenant $7,648.80 for the replacement value of goods removed or trashed by the landlord.
The landlord argued that damages should be nominal or reduced by fifty percent for depreciation.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law and holding that it was open to the trier of fact to award replacement values.
Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent tenant.
