Suzanne M. Stevenson

A real estate brokerage sought payment of commission following the sale of a commercial property after termination of a listing agreement.

The plaintiff argued the listing had not been properly terminated and that the purchaser fell within the referral and holdover provisions of the agreement.

The court found the defendant validly terminated the listing agreement by written notice in accordance with its terms and that no oral rescission occurred.

The purchaser was neither introduced to nor shown the property by the brokerage during the listing period and negotiations began only after the listing had ended.

The court held the brokerage was not entitled to commission and dismissed the claim.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim on the basis that the action was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs alleged that damage to their home occurred after a technician installation, but that significant damage only manifested during a later flooding event.

The court held that the limitation issue involved questions of discoverability and factual context that could not be determined at this preliminary stage.

However, the court found that the plaintiffs’ alternative claim for public nuisance failed to plead the essential elements of the tort, including interference with a public right affecting a substantial number of people.

The public nuisance claim was struck, but the remainder of the action was permitted to proceed.