Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CITATION: Jundi v. Ouaida, 2017 ONSC 1175
COURT FILE NO.: CV-08-357827
DATE: 20170217
RE: SAMI OSMAN EL JUNDI, Plaintiff
AND:
BASSAM OUAIDA, ANDREW G. LOUCKS, JAMES CORBETT, DUNNVILLE FOREST PRODUCTS INC. and 447248 ONTARIO LIMITED, Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
BASSAM OUAIDA and 447248 ONTARIO LIMITED, Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
AND:
SAMI OSMAN EL JUNDI and LINA MUSKAWI, Defendants by Counterclaim
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Tom Arndt, for Mr Jundi Gabriella Deokaran, for Mr Ouaida
TELECONFERENCE
[1] Mr Arndt requested a teleconference because an offer has been received on the property for $180,000. This is the first offer received since the property was exposed to the market. The property has been listed at $249,000. Mr Jundi proposes signing the offer back at $225,000.
[2] Mr Jundi has not disclosed the identity of the offeror. He says that he fears that Mr Ouaida will contact the offeror to try to dissuade him from purchasing the property. Mr Jundi advises, through counsel, that the offeror is at arm’s length from Mr Jundi.
[3] Ms Deokaran just learned of the offer minutes before the teleconference on February 15, 2017. Although she was able to be on the conference call with virtually no notice, she was not able to consult with her client beforehand.
[4] The offer expires on February 20, 2017.
[5] I adjourned the conference call to February 17, 2017 to enable Ms Deokaran to try to obtain instructions.
[6] When the conference call resumed on February 17, 2017, Ms Deokaran had been unable to reach her client. She indicated that based on her prior instructions, her client would not consent to a reduction in the price of the property. I believe that this assessment is reasonable: Mr Ouaida has consistently taken the position that the property is worth far more than the asking price of $249,000.
[7] Ms Deokaran also expressed concern that the information provided by Mr Arndt about the offer to settle and the real estate agent’s advice about a counteroffer ought to be in the form of an affidavit. She also wished that the submissions be in open court, where a recording could be kept for purposes of a record.
[8] I declined to put the matter over to formalize the evidence and return the matter to court. There must be a sense of proportion to these matters. Under my judgment, Mr Ouaida owes Mr Jundi considerably more money than the likely sale price of this property. The property has been for sale, intermittently, since 2015, and has been under the current listing for several months. This is the first offer received, and Mr Jundi should be in a position to negotiate a sale in a reasonable manner.
[9] On the other hand, I am concerned that the identity of the offeror be known before this court approves a transaction. While I agree that there is legitimate concern about Mr Ouaida seeking to dissuade a purchaser from involvement, given Mr Ouaida’s longtime expressed belief that the property is worth many times its asking price, nonetheless there should be some ability for Mr Ouaida to test the bona fides of the transaction.
[10] Taking all of this into account, I authorize Mr Jundi to sign the offer back at $225,000. Any agreement of purchase and sale will be subject to court approval. Mr Jundi may also reduce the price further in order to reach an agreement with the current proposed purchaser, again, subject to court approval.
[11] Court approval may be obtained on an expedited basis, by teleconference, but should be sought on evidence that includes a copy of the agreement of purchase and sale (which includes the identity of the purchaser) and any other information that Mr Jundi believes will assist the court in assessing the desirability of the transaction.
[12] Approval may be sought by way of teleconference, on 48 hours’ notice, to be scheduled at 9 am any court day, arrangements to be confirmed with my assistant.
[13] Ms Deokaran indicated that she may wish to pursue an appeal or stay of this direction. Then, following the teleconference, she delivered an email, copied to my assistant, asking for a solicitor’s undertaking that Mr Jundi’s solicitor will not take steps to sell the property pending return of her stay motion in the court of appeal towards the end of next week.
[14] Real estate transactions are time-sensitive. The current offer to purchase the property expires on Monday February 20, 2017. I authorize that the offer be signed back immediately, and this authorization is not stayed by Ms Deokaran’s stated intention to seek a stay from the Court of Appeal. In the absence of an order to the contrary from an appellate court, Mr Jundi may move forward to complete an agreement of purchase and sale, subject to court approval, without further delay.
___________________________
D.L. Corbett J.
RELEASED: February 17, 2017