The appellants appealed a summary judgment order regarding a real estate transaction.
They argued the motion judge erred in applying the test for uniqueness of the property by giving undue emphasis to subjective elements.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly applied the test and was entitled to accept the evidence of the respondent's wife regarding the property's uniqueness.
A cross-appeal by the respondent for further damages was also dismissed.
Costs were awarded to the respondent.
