The defendants moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that had been granted ex parte against two properties.
The defendants raised two grounds: (1) failure to make full and frank disclosure as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) that the court should exercise its discretion to discharge the CPL on the basis that the plaintiff had no reasonable claim to an interest in land and that damages was an adequate alternative remedy.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts including ongoing negotiations regarding the terms of the agreement of purchase and sale and draft agreements that differed from the initial term sheet.
The court also applied the Dhunna factors and found that the property was not unique, damages would be an adequate remedy, and there were other willing purchasers.
The CPL was discharged.
