The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for rural land in Prince Edward County after the vendor refused to close.
The defendant asserted misunderstanding regarding the closing date and HST, but the court found the contract unambiguous and concluded the defendant wrongfully repudiated the agreement.
Applying the modern test for specific performance following Semelhago and Southcott, the court held the property was uniquely suited to the plaintiffs’ residential, artistic, and educational purposes and that no reasonable substitute property was available.
Monetary damages would not adequately compensate the plaintiffs for the loss of the property’s distinctive features and suitability for their proposed use.
Summary judgment was granted and the plaintiffs were awarded specific performance of the agreement.
