The Court of Appeal of Ontario decision in 1418885 Ontario Ltd. v. 2193139 Ontario Limited, 2018 ONCA 54, recently overturned a summary judgment motion decision which confirmed the importance of requisition letters in real estate transactions.
In this case, the parties had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a property with a restaurant, golf course, 12 residential apartments, a two-storey home and a banquet hall. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale included the following requisition clause:
8. TITLE SEARCH: Buyer shall be allowed until 6:00 p.m. on the 30th day of May, 2016 (Requisition Date) to examine the title to the property at his own expense and until the earlier of: (i) thirty days from the later of the Requisition Date or the date on which the conditions in this Agreement are fulfilled or otherwise waived or, (ii) five days prior to completion, to satisfy himself that there are no outstanding work orders or deficiency notices affecting the property that its present use (Mixed uses (not limited to) commercial, agricultural, outdoor, residential) may be lawfully continued and that the principal building may be insured against risk of fire …
On the requisition date, the purchaser’s lawyer submitted a requisition that the vendor provide evidence that the present use of the property as residential apartments complied with local zoning by-laws. When the vendor’s lawyer responded that the residential apartments were a legal non-conforming use, the purchaser’s lawyer made enquiries with the zoning authorities which suggested that was not the case. The purchaser’s lawyer wrote to the vendor’s lawyer and suggested that the deposits be returned if this issue could not be resolved.
In the meanwhile, the parties proceeded with preparing for the closing of the transaction. The issue with the present use of the residential apartments was not resolved by the closing date and the purchaser’s lawyer advised the vendor’s lawyer that his client would not be closing on the transaction. The purchaser commenced an action for the return of the $150,000 deposits.
At the summary judgment motion, the judge found that the legality of the present use of the residential apartments was a valid objection and the vendor did not establish that the residential apartments were a legal non-conforming use. This would allow the purchaser to legally rescind the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and receive the deposits back, provided the purchaser did not waive its right to rely upon the objection.
The motion judge found that the purchaser had waived its right because it had: (a) full knowledge of the deficiency related to the present use of the property; and (b) communicated an unequivocal and conscious intention to abandon the right to terminate the contract based on its conduct in proceeding to prepare for the closing.
The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the motion judge had erred in finding the purchaser had waived its right to rely upon its objection. Although the purchaser’s lawyer had prepared to close on the transaction, the purchaser did not communicate an unequivocal and conscious intention to abandon its objection. Instead, the purchaser only placed itself in a position to close on the transaction if it decided to waive the deficiency or some other solution to the issue was reached. Therefore, the Court of Appeal ordered the return of the $150,000 deposits to the purchaser with costs of the motion and the appeal to the purchaser.
If you require legal advice or representation in respect to real estate litigation, please contact us for an initial consultation.
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
One Comment on “Court of Appeal Confirms Importance of Requisitions in Real Estate Transactions”
Hello> I’m about to purchase a house that I bought without conditions. My agent was inferring that i should “go in clean” to win the house, to mention a few things. I asked my agent to get me out of it the day after I gave the deposit, however it took him 8 days to inform the seller’s and he stated I “couldn’t get the interest rate I wanted”. (he was trying to dissuade me this whole time). and this was not the truth.
I did finally go to a litigation lawyer, who tried for a mutual release as well. This hasn’t worked as seller’s aren’t budging. I have since found out there are many issues with the house. (moisture issues, flashings missing, severed beam in living room (under bathroom), walls removed (not structural) and recently, the seller’s repaired the leaking water heater piple without my knowledge (had been leaking for at lest 2 months) and repaired drywall above, so I cannot see if there’s water damage.
I have used my 3 walkthroughs, due to all the problems and requested another walk through, which they denied.
My lawyer requested a final walkthrough before I close, (via requisitions) and they have denied this as well.
Do I have a case to not purchase due to latent defect (not revealing the hot water tank leaking) > I do not want to purchase this place.
Thank you so much.