Case information

Judgments and orders — Summary judgment — Property — Real Property –– Failed real estate transaction — Applicant failing to close transaction in accordance with agreement of purchase and sale — Applicant commencing action for return of deposit — Motion judge allowing respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing action - Scope and content of duty to exercise contractual discretion in good faith when determining whether conditions precedent in agreement of purchase and sale are satisfied, where such conditions do not contain clear, objective criteria for compliance — Whether court entitled to rely on post-contractual events to inform interpretation of contract — Whether courts empowered to award punitive damages for breach of human rights legislation — Whether appropriate to assess punitive damages relating to agreement of purchase and sale in accordance with principles applicable to contracts — Whether requiring doctor’s note as part of accommodation process amounts to discrimination — Whether trial judge should ever conduct independent research other than as to matters of law — Procedures necessary to maintain integrity of trial process, including fairness to witness and parties, and ensure that trial judge does not become investigator and counsel

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.

Applicant Natalie Mouralian entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property owned by respondent Isabelle Groleau. Ms. Mouralian paid a deposit in accordance with that agreement. However, Ms. Mouralian was unable complete the transaction, and Ms. Groleau subsequently sold the property to another buyer at a higher sale price. Ms. Mouralian commenced an action against Ms. Groleau, seeking the return of her deposit.

Ms. Groleau brought a motion for summary judgment. Ms. Mouralian resisted the motion on the basis that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial, concerning whether she should be entitled to relief from forfeiture of her deposit. The motion judge concluded that the requisite elements of the test for relief from forfeiture had not been established. The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Ms. Mouralian’s appeal.