|
 |
| |
|
  |
January 31, February 1 - 4, 7 - 11 and 14, 1994 |
 |
 |
| Goldstein vs. Davison |
|
Between
Jacob Goldstein in trust and 1480 Derry Road East Holdings
Ltd., Plaintiffs, and Marie Davison, Dorothy S. Rae, D.E. Budd Real Estate Ltd., and Dallas Budd, Defendants |
|
[1994] O.J. No. 1018
Action No. 92-CQ-17019 |
|
Ontario Court of Justice - General Division
Toronto, Ontario
Ground J. |
|
Heard: January 31, February 1 - 4, 7 - 11 and 14, 1994.
Judgment: May 12, 1994.
(43 pp.) |
|
 |
|
Messod Boussidan, for the Plaintiffs.
Eric M. Kelday, for the Defendants, Dorothy S. Rae, D.E. Budd Real Estate Ltd. and Dallas Budd. |
|
| Sale of land — The contract — Mistake, misunderstanding and misrepresentation — Misrepresentation, what constitutes — Failure to disclose heritage designation. |
|
| This was an action for rescission and damages arising out of an agreement of purchase and sale of a property. The City had advised the vendor that it was interested in designating the house as a heritage building. No one informed the purchaser, who did not proceed with his proposed redevelopment plans and the property remained rented as a residence. The purchaser argued that the failure to disclose the heritage designation proposal constituted fraudulent misrepresentation. He also raised breach of duty of care and negligence. The purchaser spent money on the development of an acceptable design and site plan for a commercial development. |
|
| Held, The action was allowed against the agent, the agency and the vendor. |
|
| There was a negligent misrepresentation on the part of the agent in failing to disclose the potential heritage designation and both the vendor and the agent were liable in damages to the purchaser. Rescission was not available since the transaction closed and there was no substantial error. There had to be a reference to the Master to assess the difference between the purchase price and the value of the property on closing with the potential designation in place and to assess the cost of integrating the main house into the development. Some professional fees also incurred were allowed but carrying costs were not allowed. Damages for loss of expected revenue were not awarded, as the reason for the purchaser abandoning the development was that it was not economically viable. |
|
 Download PDF of full case |
|
|
|
|
|
