The appellant vendor sold a property to the respondent purchaser, accepting two assigned mortgages as partial payment.
The appellant subsequently discovered the mortgaged properties were worth significantly less than the face value of the mortgages and sued for fraudulent misrepresentation.
The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondents, finding no false representation.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there was a genuine issue for trial as the record contained evidence from which a trial judge could infer that the respondents made false representations by words or conduct regarding the value of the mortgaged properties.
