W. Murray

The plaintiff purchaser sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The transaction failed to close because the defendant vendor's parents registered a caution on title, claiming the vendor held the property in trust for them.

The court found that the parents had gifted the property to the vendor, rebutting the presumption of resulting trust.

Alternatively, the court held that under the Land Titles Act, the registered owner had the right to sell the property to a bona fide purchaser for value regardless of any unregistered trust interest.

The parents' claim was dismissed and the cautions were ordered deleted.

The plaintiff purchaser sought specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The transaction failed to close because the defendant vendor's parents registered a caution on title, claiming the vendor held the property in trust for them.

The court found that the parents had gifted the property to the vendor, rebutting the presumption of resulting trust.

Alternatively, the court held that under the Land Titles Act, the registered owner had the right to sell the property to a bona fide purchaser for value regardless of any unregistered trust interest.

The parents' claim was dismissed and the cautions were ordered deleted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The transaction failed to close because the registered owner's parents claimed they were the true beneficial owners of the property under a resulting trust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that significant credibility issues and conflicting evidence regarding the beneficial ownership of the property created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add a new defendant and assert claims for declaratory relief and unjust enrichment relating to alleged transfers of sale proceeds from a property transaction.

The proposed amendments alleged fraudulent conveyance and preferential payments to a shareholder of the defendant corporation.

The court held that the proposed pleading lacked the necessary material facts to support allegations of fraud, conspiracy, interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment, and was internally inconsistent and deficient under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court further found the pleading failed to provide proper particulars and did not establish a tenable cause of action against the proposed defendant.

The motion to add the party and amend the pleading was therefore refused.