
.png)

.png)

.png)

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