HPH (79-85 Shuter) Limited Partnership et al. v. Ughratdar, 2026 ONSC 719

HPH (79-85 SHUTER) LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al. v. FAIZAL GORO UGHRATDAR, 2026 ONSC 719

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00735704-0000

DATE: 20260217

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HPH (79-85 SHUTER) LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and HPH (79-85 SHUTER) GP LIMITED

Plaintiffs

– and –

FAIZAL GORO UGHRATDAR

Defendant

Eric Turkienicz, for the Plaintiffs

Self-represented Defendant

HEARD: February 2, 2026

JOHN CALLAGHAN J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1This is an unopposed summary judgment motion.

2The plaintiffs sold a residential condominium unit to the defendant. The defendant failed to close. The plaintiffs later sold the unit for less than the sale price to the defendant. In this action, the plaintiffs seek the shortfall and the added carrying costs.

3The defendant defended the action but neither filed material nor appeared on this motion.

Background

4On July 27, 2020, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of the unit (the “Agreement”), under which the defendant agreed to purchase the unit for the purchase price which was to be $694,900.00 inclusive of HST. The defendant paid deposits of $104, 235.

5The closing date was extended to July 24, 2024 at the request of the defendant. The defendant failed to close on that date. The plaintiffs provided the defendant an opportunity to rectify the default. Having not done so by September 2024, the plaintiffs sent the defendant notice of default.

6The unit was then placed back on the market. It sold in December 2022 for $469,780.

7The plaintiffs seek the delta between the two sale prices and the costs incurred including condo fees, reserve fund fees and other adjustments set out in the affidavits of Mr. Freedman. It seeks $ $110,585.68, being the loss less the deposits.

Analysis

8Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue for trial: Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, Rule 20. See also Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 at para. 47. It has been utilized where there is no dispute that the plaintiff was ready, able and willing to close, and the defendant failed to close: Briscoe-Montgomery v. Kelly, 2014 ONSC 5224 at para. 17.

9Under r. 20.04(2.1), there is provision to make limited findings of fact if there is a genuine issue for trial, but I need not go there on this record as there is no evidence from the defendant giving rise to a genuine issue for trial.

10In this case, the uncontested evidence is that the defendant failed to tender on closing. The failure to tender constitutes a breach of the Agreement: Tribute (Simcoe Street) Limited v. Ali, 2022 ONSC 3501, at para. 49. As such, there is no genuine issue for trial regarding the defendant’s breach of the Agreement.

11In terms of damages, where a purchaser fails to close on a real estate transaction, the vendor is to be placed in the same position as if the agreement had not been breached by the purchaser. This generally involves an assessment of the contract price less the market value of the land at the time of the breach, although the date of valuation may vary depending on the case. In most cases, as it is here, it is the difference between the sale price on the breached agreement and the subsequent sale: DHMK Properties Inc. v. 2296608 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONCA 961, at para. 49; 100 Main Street East Ltd. v. WB Sullivan Construction, 1978 1630 (ON CA), 1978 Carswell Ont 1459, at para. 55 (Ont CA).

12A vendor is also entitled to those expenses it incurred in maintaining the unit from the date of breach to the date of the resale of the property: Paradise Homes North West Inc. v. Sidhu, 2019 ONSC 1600 at ONSC 4411 at para. 14: Madison Homes v. Shi, 2020 ONSC 7810 at paras. 23-36.

13Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to damages in the amount of the difference between the subsequent sale purchase and the sale price to the defendant plus the expenses incurred. As noted above, that amount is $110,585.68. The plaintiffs are also entitled to the forfeiture of the deposits.

14The Agreement provided for interest at 24% on any payment default. The plaintiffs are entitled to pre and post-judgment interest of 24% on the judgment of $110,585.68.

15The plaintiffs are entitled to their partial indemnity costs. Having reviewed the bill of costs, I set the partial indemnity costs at $10,900. This amount is generally in accord with the costs request and is an amount that is fair, reasonable and an amount the opposing side could reasonably expect to pay on such an action. The costs award is entitled to post-judgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate.

16The plaintiffs may forward a draft judgment for the court’s review and approval which may be sent to my assistant who circulated this decision.

Callaghan J.