Key Issues

1. HST Calculation Ambiguity: Disagreement on which portions of the property were commercial vs. residential and the resultant HST.
2. Escrow Funds: Vendor (Miculinic Investment Corp.) sought remaining escrow funds of $273,851.33.
3. Payment and Costs: Respondents paid $276,106.19 to the appellant in March 2023, but dispute over remaining funds persisted.

Appeal Decision

• Reasons for Decision:
  • Application judge failed to properly interpret the agreement of purchase and sale.
  • Reliance on Bottero appraisal evidence was flawed:
    • Prepared retrospectively.
    • Based on respondents’ information.
    • Admissibility issues due to non-compliance with expert evidence rules.
• Conclusion:
  • Original judgment, including costs order, set aside.
  • Case remitted for rehearing by a different judge.
  • Appellant awarded costs of $25,000 for the appeal.

Important Points

• Analysis Requirement: Agreement of purchase and sale must be interpreted as a whole, considering the factual matrix at the time of the agreement.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Proper qualifications and adherence to procedural rules for expert evidence are crucial.
• Rehearing: Required for a fresh evidentiary assessment.

Summary of Monetary Awards/Costs

• Total amount paid by respondents to appellant: $276,106.19
• Total costs awarded to appellant for the appeal: $25,000

Thus, the total monetary compensation and costs awarded to the successful party (Miculinic Investment Corp.) sum up to $301,106.19