Walter R. Wellenreiter

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granting the respondent commissions on the sale of two properties.

The motion judge found that the appellant Zaman had executed a valid buyer representation agreement and rejected his defenses based on dyslexia, alleged oral amendments, and failure to disclose commissions.

On appeal, the appellants argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because a counterclaim for negligence was inextricably intertwined with the claim.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the counterclaim was not inextricably intertwined with the claim and was premised on the validity of the buyer representation agreement itself.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for breach of a Buyer Representation Agreement, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favourable to the defendants than the final judgment.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs, disbursements, and interest at $58,855.95.

The plaintiff, a real estate brokerage, moved for summary judgment to recover unpaid commissions from the defendants under a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA).

The defendants argued an oral collateral understanding that commissions would be paid by the seller and that the agent failed to assist.

The court found the written BRA valid and enforceable, rejecting the alleged oral understanding due to the entire agreement clause and the parole evidence rule.

The court also found that the defendants deliberately excluded the agent from final negotiations and failed to disclose property purchases through closely-held corporations to avoid commission payments.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for commissions owed on two properties, plus interest.