The property held unique significance due to its status as their residence for over five years
In a recent family dispute, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered the transfer of a Brockville property to the appellants, a father and stepmother, citing its unique significance as their home and the son's breach of contractual obligations.
The dispute in Gill v. Gill, 2024 ONCA 877 centred on a property purchased in 2011 by the son for $218,000, with financial contributions from the appellants. The son faced financial difficulties after losing his job, prompting two agreements in early 2018. These agreements stipulated that the appellants would move into the property, take over its expenses, and acquire ownership upon paying out the mortgage. The 2018 agreement additionally required the son to temporarily reside in part of the property while paying rent and utilities.
The appellants fulfilled their obligations under the agreements, moving in and maintaining the property. The son vacated the property in August 2018 and ceased making payments stipulated by the agreements. In 2019, the son filed a claim against the appellants, seeking possession of the property and a declaration that the agreements were void.
The trial judge declared the 2018 agreement valid but did not order the property transfer, citing the appellants' alleged delays in seeking specific performance. The court awarded damages to the appellants for expenses incurred but ordered them to vacate the property.
The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision, ordering specific performance of the 2018 agreement. The court found that the trial judge erred in failing to recognize the unique nature of the property as the appellants’ established home. The court emphasized that the property held subjective and objective uniqueness due to its status as the appellants’ residence for over five years, during which they had invested in its maintenance and improvements.
The appellate court also concluded that the equities favoured specific performance. It highlighted that the appellants had adhered to their contractual obligations, while the respondent breached the agreement without justification. The court rejected the claim that specific performance would unfairly benefit the appellants, noting no evidence of duress or unconscionability in the agreements.
