COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-221 (Orangeville File)
DATE: 2021 02 02
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited
Plaintiff
– and –
Mei Sun also known as Sun Mei
Defendant
Ian Latimer, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Ru Nan Shi, Counsel for the Defendant
HEARD: December 3 and 4, 2020
Justice G.D. Lemon
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Issue
[1] On July 22, 2020, I heard a summary judgment motion brought by Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited. As I set out at that time, Teefy was the vendor of a residential property and the defendant, Mei Sun, was to be the purchaser. Teefy says that it was ready, willing and able to complete the transaction on November 7, 2018, but Ms. Sun failed to close because she did not have the funds to purchase the property.
[2] In response, Ms. Sun submitted that Teefy’s real estate agent “took advantage of her vulnerability” and “exercised mental pressure, undue pressure and compulsion toward” her. She said that those agents pressured her into signing the agreement without explaining its full terms, including a cooling off period.
[3] In my endorsement, I found that Ms. Sun raised six issues that required a trial, Teefy Developments v. Sun, 2020 ONSC 5210, at para. 42:
However, Ms. Sun raises six issues that she submits require a trial:
1 Was Mr. Cheng Teefy’s agent?
2 Did Teefy’s other agents force her into signing the agreement?
3 Was there a “cooling off” term of the agreement that she was prevented from using?
4 Did Teefy exercise due diligence in enquiring about her financial circumstances?
5 Did Teefy exercise due diligence in enquiring about her spouse’s consent to the transaction?
6 Did Teefy properly mitigate its damages?
[4] For reasons set out at that time, I dismissed Teefy’s motion for summary judgment. However, I found that the issues raised by Ms. Sun were the only ones that required a trial. I then ordered:
Pursuant to r. 20.05(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, if I let the matter proceed to trial, I may give such directions or impose such terms as are just, including orders relating to documents, motions, examinations, affidavits for trial, and time limits.
To that end, subject to further submissions and orders, I order that this matter shall proceed to trial pursuant to r. 76 of the Rules. As an additional term, the parties shall prepare an agreed statement of facts to be put into the trial record. I believe that I have set out the essential facts above, but the parties may have some issues with subtleties that I may have missed, or they may wish to add other agreed facts.
[5] On the day in question, Ms. Sun made a rash decision. She was not assisted by her agents. She was not assisted by an unforeseen change in the market. But the sad fact is that the losses that arose from her error should not fall upon Teefy. For the following reasons, I grant judgment as requested for Teefy against Ms. Sun.
Trial Evidence
[6] In accord with r. 76, the evidence at trial was made up of an Agreed Statement of Facts, affidavits and viva voce evidence. The parties agreed to file evidence of most witnesses by affidavit. Some witnesses were then cross-examined on their affidavits, others were not.
[7] The agreed statement of facts sets the background for these reasons and I will summarize that first. Following that review, I will summarize and analyze the evidence according to the issues set out above.
Background
[8] The Agreed Statement of Facts confirms the following. For the most part, I have used the wording of that document.
[9] In 2016, Teefy was