In real estate disputes, where the property often represents a person’s most significant financial investment, the stakes are undeniably high. When transactions fall through or contracts are breached, the financial and emotional toll can be significant. 

To make matters worse, court backlogs means waiting years for a trial is often unavoidable. Fortunately, summary judgment provides a faster, more efficient path to resolving these disputes.

Summary judgment allows courts to resolve disputes without the need for a full trial, making it a powerful tool in the hands of parties seeking a swift and fair resolution. This streamlined approach is particularly well-suited to real estate cases, where issues often hinge on clear documentary evidence, such as agreements of purchase and sale (APS), amendments, financial records, and correspondence. 

Recent Ontario Superior Court decisions, including Reid v. Abass and Kinariwala v. Ruiz, highlight how summary judgment delivers fair and efficient outcomes in real estate disputes.

Reid v. Abass

In Reid v. Abass, the sellers sought damages after a buyer failed to close on a $999,000.00 home purchase. The buyer, citing an appraisal that valued the property at $795,000.00, requested a price reduction and a closing extension. 

The sellers rejected this and declared the APS breached, eventually relisting and selling the property for $850,000.00. The dispute turned on the interpretation of an extension agreement the parties later signed. 

The sellers argued it preserved their right to claim the original purchase price, but the court disagreed. It found the agreement released the buyer from liability for the original price as long as the transaction closed under the revised terms. This case highlights how ambiguous language in contractual amendments can significantly impact a party’s ability to recover damages.

Kinariwala v. Ruiz 

In contrast, Kinariwala v. Ruiz centred on whether the seller acted reasonably to mitigate damages after the buyer failed to close on a $465,000.00 purchase. The seller delayed re-listing the property, choosing instead to rent it through Airbnb while waiting for market conditions to stabilize. 

Ultimately, the property was re-listed and sold for $340,000.00, and the seller sought damages for the difference between the original price and the eventual sale price, as well as additional carrying costs.

The court ruled in favour of the seller, finding their mitigation efforts reasonable under the circumstances. The seller’s decision to delay re-listing was based on professional advice from a Realtor, and the use of the property for short-term rentals helped offset some of the losses. 

The buyer’s claim that the property would have sold for a higher price if re-listed earlier was unsupported by evidence, particularly as no expert testimony was provided. The court awarded the seller damages via summary judgment, reinforcing that sellers must take reasonable steps but aren’t expected to achieve perfect outcomes.

Summary judgment can work effectively

Together, these cases illustrate how summary judgment works effectively in real estate disputes while also highlighting its limitations. In Reid, the sellers’ inability to prove their interpretation of the extension agreement led to dismissal, demonstrating how critical it is to draft clear and unambiguous contracts. In Kinariwala, the seller’s prudent actions and thorough documentation of mitigation efforts enabled the court to resolve the dispute fairly and efficiently through summary judgment.

For buyers and sellers, these cases offer valuable lessons. Buyers must be financially prepared to fulfill their obligations under an agreement of purchase and sale, as courts rarely excuse breaches stemming from financing issues. Sellers, on the other hand, should act swiftly to mitigate their losses, keep thorough records of their actions, and rely on professional advice to strengthen their position. While summary judgment offers a faster and more cost-effective path to justice, its success hinges on detailed and reliable documentary evidence that clearly supports your case.