Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: June 21, 2017 Docket: C63446
Judges: Hoy A.C.J.O., van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A.
Between
Jigar Patel and Amita Patel Applicants (Respondents)
and
Wayne Harriott and Yvette James Respondents (Appellants)
Counsel
Louis Robinson, for the appellants
Trevor Courtis, for the respondents
Heard and orally released: June 21, 2017
On appeal from: the judgment of Justice Thomas A. Bielby of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 3, 2017.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Overview
The application judge determined that there was a binding agreement for the purchase and sale of the appellants' Brampton home and ordered specific performance of the agreement.
2The appellants argue that the application judge erred in concluding there were no material facts in dispute and it was appropriate for this matter to be heard by way of application. They also argue the respondents' offer to purchase their home was null and void and the application judge's finding there was a binding agreement amounted to reviewable error. Finally, they say there was no evidence to support the application judge's conclusion that their acceptance of the respondents' offer amounted to a counteroffer.
3We reject these arguments.
[4]
Analysis
As the application judge explained, while there was a dispute about when the appellants accepted the respondents' offer, that dispute did not affect his ability to determine the application. The application judge found that whether or not the appellants accepted the respondents' offer after its stated time of expiry, the appellants expressly signified that they were prepared to enter into an agreement to sell their home by signing and returning the respondents' offer. Further, the parties subsequently proceeded in a manner consistent with a binding agreement having been concluded. For example, the appellants accepted a deposit cheque from the respondents and indicated they would only permit revisits to the home by the respondents that were permitted by the terms of the offer. There is no basis to interfere with the application judge's legal determination on this undisputed evidence.
5The appellants did not take issue with the remedy ordered by the application judge except on appeal. We agree that this remedy was justified and appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
[6]
Disposition
This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The respondents shall be entitled to their costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $13,000, including disbursements and HST.
"Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O."
"K.M. van Rensburg J.A."
"L.B. Roberts J.A."
