Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Contracts – Restitution – Property – Real property – Holdover clause in listing agreement – Where a Listing Agreement provides that written notice of introduction is to be given, will actual notice suffice – Will a subsequent agreement of purchase and sale making reference to the payment of commission satisfy the obligation to provide written notice – Will such a provision entitle the realtor to the payment of commission or other compensation under the doctrines of quantum meruit and/or unjust enrichment.

The respondent, Elcarim Inc., and the applicant, Ariston Realty, entered into a listing agreement for the sale of a property owned by Elcarim. The agreement contained a holdover clause in which Elcarim agreed to pay Ariston a commission on completion of any sale effected within six months after the expiry of the agreement with any party to whom Ariston or co-operating brokers introduced to the property during the term of the agreement, provided Ariston notified Elcarim in writing prior to the expiry of the agreement of the name of the party introduced. During the term of the listing agreement, Ariston introduced Context Development Inc., the eventual purchaser of the property, however Ariston never provided Elcarim with written notification. Three and one-half months after the expiry of the listing agreement, Context signed an agreement of purchase and sale with Elcarim for the property. After the sale closed, Ariston submitted an invoice to Elcarim for commission on the sale. Elcarim did not pay the invoice and Ariston commenced an action for payment.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed Ariston Realty’s action, awarding $120,375.00 for unpaid commission, and dismissed the respondents’ counterclaim. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeal and allowed the applicant’s cross-appeal in part, with costs of $20,000 and $130,000 to the respondents for the appeal and trial respectively.