The applicant, Thuy Bich Ti “Michelle” Le, agreed to purchase a residential property for $1,423,408.96, paying $99,810 in deposits.
The deal failed to close because the applicant’s financing fell through. She claimed the bank refused to fund the mortgage due to valuation concerns and rising interest rates.
The respondent, Calvan Barrhaven Conservancy Inc., ready and willing to close, declared the applicant in breach of contract, forfeited the deposits, and intends to sue for further damages, as the property later resold at a lower price.
The applicant sought relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing misrepresentation regarding lot size and the respondent’s refusal to allow assignment of the contract.
Court’s Decision
Application dismissed (without prejudice).
The court found that the agreement was unconditional and that the respondent had a prima facie right to forfeit the deposit.
Relief from forfeiture applies only if the forfeiture is disproportionate or unconscionable (Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc., 2017 ONCA 282), which was undetermined at this stage.
The applicant may defend and counterclaim if the respondent sues.
Costs
The issue of costs remains open for agreement or written submissions within 30 days.
No monetary award, costs, or damages were granted at this stage.
