In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Paracha v. Naqi Construction Ltd., 2024 ONCA 816, the case involved a dispute over four real estate transactions, contested ownership interests, and allegations of financial misconduct. The case arose from investments made by the in four properties, with funds allegedly advanced to the appellants property acquisition, renovation, and sale. While the respondents claimed ownership interests in the properties, the appellants asserted the funds were loans. The absence of written agreements made the trial judge’s reliance on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence central to resolving the dispute.
A critical factor in the trial court’s decision was its assessment of credibility. The trial judge found that the appellants’ testimony lacked reliability and that their arguments were contradicted by other witnesses, including a credible real estate agent. In contrast, the respondents’ evidence was found to be consistent and corroborated by independent inspections and documentation. The appellate court upheld these findings, stressing the trial judge’s broad discretion in evaluating credibility.
On appeal, the appellants invoked the Statute of Frauds (the “Statute”), asserting that any oral agreement concerning land ownership was unenforceable without written documentation. However, this argument failed for multiple reasons. It was raised for the first time on appeal, and the appellants did not provide a complete trial record to support their position. Moreover, the court noted that s. 10 of the Statute allows for the recognition of trusts implied by law, aligning with the trial court’s findings on resulting and constructive trusts.
The appellate court reiterated the high bar for overturning factual findings, which require a “palpable and overriding error.” The appellants’ criticisms—alleging misapprehension of evidence and inadequate reasoning—were dismissed as attempts to reargue the case. The trial judge’s findings were thorough and supported by the evidence, leaving no basis for appellate interference.
This decision in Paracha v. Naqi Construction Ltd. underscores the risks of informal agreements in real estate transactions. Parties should consider seeking legal advice to memorialize agreements in writing to avoid costly and prolonged litigation. Additionally, credibility and the quality of evidence play pivotal appears to play a critical role in disputes involving oral agreements. Courts may prioritize consistency and corroboration, particularly when written documentation is lacking.
At Gilbertson Davis LLP, our lawyers can assist you with matters involving Commercial and Contract Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Real Estate and Property Litigation, and can aid in resolving your legal issues in a timely and cost-effective manner. Please contact Gilbertson Davis LLP to schedule a consultation with one of our lawyers.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
