This appeal concerns a real estate transaction that failed due to a misunderstanding about a prescriptive easement. Roalno Inc., led by Sidney Wynton Semple, refused to close on the purchase of two lots from Dale Schaefer and Maurice Freiburger unless the sale price was reduced or the supposed easement was removed. The trial judge denied Roalno's request for specific performance, stating Roalno breached the contract by not closing.
Key Points:
Roalno believed an easement might exist, affecting the property's value and utility, leading them to request either a price reduction or easement extinguishment as conditions to proceed.
The trial judge found no actual easement existed; the property is registered under the Land Titles system, which doesn't allow for the establishment of a prescriptive easement.
Roalno's refusal to close based on the erroneous belief about the easement's existence constituted a breach of the purchase agreement.
Court Decision:
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision, agreeing Roalno breached the agreement by not closing and thus could not claim specific performance.
The cross-appeal by Brian and Kenneth Freiburger was dismissed as moot, given Roalno's appeal was not granted.
Outcome:
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The court suggested parties negotiate costs, with provision for further submissions on costs if needed.
No specific costs were awarded in the decision as it encourages the parties to come to an agreement regarding costs.
