Get started

Relief From Forfeiture and Deposits: No Easy Feat for Buyers in Breach

Buyers
Real Estate Professionals
Kormans LLP
line
November 10, 2022
Ready to talk?
We’re here to answer all of your questions.
Follow us online
fb-icontwitter-icon

When a purchase and sale transaction fails due to a breach of contract by the buyer, there is often uncertainty surrounding entitlement to any deposits made on the purchase. Generally, buyers who breach the Agreement of Purchase and Sale forfeit the deposit to the seller. However, buyers may apply to the Courts for relief from forfeiture to prevent this outcome.

Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified certain matters related to relief from forfeiture of deposits on an agreement of purchase and sale. In 1854329 Ontario Inc. v. Cairo, 2022 ONCA 744, the appellant (the “Buyer”) signed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “APS”) with the respondent (the “Seller”) to purchase a commercial building from the Seller for a total of $7.25 million (the “Original Purchase Price”), and put down an initial deposit of $200,000.00. The APS contained a financing condition for the benefit of the Buyer, and the APS further provided that if the Buyer waived the financing condition, it would be required to put down an additional $200,000.00 deposit so that the deposits totalled $400,000.00 (the “Deposit”). The Buyer subsequently received a term sheet from Business Development Bank of Canada (the “Lender”), which set out the proposed loan terms, but was not an actual offer to provide the loan. Based on the term sheet provided by the Lender, the Buyer waived its financing condition and put down the further $200,000.00 towards the Deposit. The Lender later changed its loan terms, which meant that the Buyer could no longer qualify for the loan. As the Buyer could not fund the purchase without the loan, its counsel requested a six month extension from the Seller’s counsel, which extension request was denied. The Seller tendered and later sold the property for $75,000.00 less than the Original Purchase Price.

The Seller later applied for summary judgment to receive the full Deposit, while the Buyer requested for relief from forfeiture of the Deposit. The motion judge ruled in favour of the Seller and found that it was entitled to the full amount of the Deposit. The Buyer appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the motion judge, providing the following reasons for the decision:

  • The Deposit, which was 5.5% of the sale price, was considered commercially reasonable and not disproportionate to the amount of damages incurred by the Seller
  • The court found that there was no inequality in terms of bargaining power between the parties
  • There was no substantially unfair bargain
  • The Seller did not act unreasonably (and there was no evidence that the Buyer or its counsel attempted to seriously negotiate, or provide compensation to the Seller)
  • When the Buyer waived the financing condition, it assumed the related risks

Ultimately, the Buyer was not able to prove that its case was exceptional enough for relief from forfeiture to be granted. There are important takeaways from this case for buyers, sellers, and real estate lawyers alike:

  • When a buyer waives its financing condition without having the requisite cash on hand to complete the transaction, it assumes all related risks of the loan falling through. Buyers should not be waiving their financing conditions based on preliminary loan terms, and without having a firm loan offer/commitment
  • If a deposit is considered to be proportionate to the purchase price, this weighs against the buyer when it comes to relief from forfeiture
  • If the buyer and seller were on equal footing in terms of bargaining power, this weighs against the buyer when it comes to relief from forfeiture
  • If the seller acted reasonably throughout, this weighs against the buyer when it comes to relief from forfeiture. Buyers and their counsel must ensure that serious negotiation attempts are made to salvage a failing transaction, including making serious offers of compensation to the seller

Please see below for the complete decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal:

2022 ONCA 744 (CanLII) | 1854329 Ontario Inc. v. Cairo | CanLII

When it comes to your own transactions, reach out to a knowledgeable lawyer at Kormans LLP for reliable advice. Please do not hesitate to contact us at (905) 270-6660 or e-mail us at:  Info@kormans.ca.

kormans-logo
linekormans-logokormans-logo
Kormans LLP
About

Related Services

Related Blog Posts
Real Estate Law
30-Year Amortization for First Time Home Buyers of New Build Homes
Kormans LLP
In the volatile residential real estate market conditions in Ontario during the past year or so the forfeiture of deposits has become a crucial issue often encountered during  ...
August 8, 2024
Corporate Law
Real Estate Law
The Power of Sale Process in Ontario: Key Information for Borrowers and Lenders
Kormans LLP
In the volatile residential real estate market conditions in Ontario during the past year or so the forfeiture of deposits has become a crucial issue often encountered during  ...
August 1, 2024
Corporate Law
Registering Your Non-Ontario Corporation as an Extra-Provincial Corporation in Ontario
Kormans LLP
In the volatile residential real estate market conditions in Ontario during the past year or so the forfeiture of deposits has become a crucial issue often encountered during  ...
February 22, 2024
Recent Blog Posts
limited liability partnership ontario
Corporate Law
Real Estate Law
The Smarter Way to Practice Together: LLPs in Ontario
M. Wajahat Faizan

Discover how Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) in Ontario protect professionals like lawyers, accountants, and architects while allowing collaboration, resource-sharing, and individual liability protection.

September 18, 2025
Real Estate Law
HST Remittance on a Commercial Sale – Part Two
Kormans LLP

In this blog post, we will cover in further detail some of the other key items that are important to consider when accepting HST indemnity from the Buyer for the HST self-remittance.

August 14, 2025
Real Estate Law
Delivery of Deposit Is Not a Cooling-Off Period
Kormans LLP

There is an all-too-common misconception by some Buyers and even by some Buyers’ professional, licenced realtors that the time period for the delivery of a Deposit pursuant to a resale Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) effectively provides the Buyer with a cooling-off period. The mistaken belief is that the Buyer has until the time and date specified in the APS for the delivery of the Deposit to have Buyer’s remorse for whatever reason and therefore elect to terminate the APS by not delivering the Deposit.

August 7, 2025
kormans-logo