The appellant landlord and respondent tenants entered into a residential occupancy agreement and an option to purchase agreement.
The respondent attempted to exercise the option to purchase, but the notice was late and did not include the required deposit.
The parties subsequently entered into a new agreement of purchase and sale at a higher price, which the respondent failed to close.
The application judge found the respondent had substantially complied with the option agreement and dismissed the landlord's application.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the option agreement required strict compliance due to 'time is of the essence' and non-waiver clauses.
The Court ordered the forfeiture of the majority of the deposit but declined to issue a writ of possession, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the residential tenancy.
