Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2022-02-02 Docket: C69220
Huscroft, Sossin and Favreau JJ.A.
Between
Anna Calleja Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim (Respondent)
and
Aliakbar Ahmadi Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim (Appellant)
Counsel: Mitchell Wine and Jonathan Beiles, for the appellant Varoujan Arman and Philip Yang, for the respondent
Heard: February 1, 2022 by video conference
On appeal from the order of Justice Audrey P. Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 3, 2021.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Introduction
The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in finding that the respondent met her duty to mitigate following his breach of the contract of purchase and sale, and erred in granting summary judgment to the respondent as a result. The appellant also argues that the motion judge’s reasons are inadequate.
2We reject these submissions.
[3]
Adequacy of Reasons
First, as to the adequacy of the reasons, reasons are not judged against a standard of perfection. They need not address every issue raised nor need they address all of the issues in detail. Reasons are judged functionally. They are to be read as a whole. They must explain the result so that the losing party knows why it lost, and they must permit meaningful appellate review.
4We are satisfied that the motion judge’s reasons are responsive to the issues raised and permit appellate review. The appellant lost the case because he failed to meet his burden to establish that the respondent failed in her duty to mitigate damages.
[5]
Mitigation of Damages
There was no question that the appellant breached the contract to buy the respondent’s house for $2 million. All that was at issue was whether the respondent reasonably mitigated her damages when she sold the house to a third party for $1.91 million.
6The motion judge found that she did. Her decision is amply supported by the record and is reasonable. The respondent was under no obligation to grant the appellant an extension to complete the purchase. The appellant had already been granted one extension and not only did he fail to close, but he also failed to pay the carrying costs that were a condition of granting the extension.
7The respondent was entitled to consider the contract at an end when the appellant failed to close on January 14, 2020 – the second closing date. The burden was on the appellant to establish that the respondent failed to mitigate after this date.
8There is no merit to the appellant’s argument that the respondent failed to mitigate by not considering his subsequent offers and assurances, or by not replying to all of them. She was under no obligation to deal with him any further. She was required to take only reasonable steps in mitigation and the motion judge made no error in finding that she did so. Indeed, she listed the property with a real estate agent and negotiated the price upwards by over $100,000 from the initial offer she received, thus limiting the damages owed by the appellant.
9Finally, the motion judge made no error in concluding that this was an appropriate case for summary judgment. Nothing turned on the credibility of the parties.
[10]
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to costs in the agreed amount of $11,500, all inclusive.
“Grant Huscroft J.A.”
“Sossin J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”
