Plaintiff's interest in potential value of investment was much larger than sum purchaser paid

Real Property - Registration of real property - Certificate of pending litigation (lis pendens)

Defendant purchaser purchased subject property ostensibly from defendant vendor, shares of which were 50/50 between plaintiff and defendant NA, whose real estate agent husband MC did business with purchaser's principal. Plaintiff alleged MC suggested he invest in property for development with MC's help, and best vehicle was to purchase shares of corporation that held title to property (vendor), but plaintiff was never told that previous owner was holding shares as MC's nominee. Plaintiff alleged MC withheld information about site plan approval, and discovered MC had signed it without authorization on behalf of vendor, and NA had registered notice on title indicating she had authority to bind vendor. Plaintiff alleged without consultation, property was sold seven days after agreement was signed by NA on behalf of vendor and with purchaser's acknowledgment that MC and NA were in dispute with plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged sale was fraudulent and ought to be rescinded, which purchaser denied. Master dismissed purchaser's motion for order discharging certificate of pending litigation. Purchaser appealed. Appeal dismissed. Master agreed with plaintiff and his position that interest in land was issue. Master noted badges of fraud: secret nature of transaction, NA's execution of transfer documents, absence of resolution sanctioning sale, MC instructed real estate counsel, and haste in completing sale. Master accurately considered whether plaintiff was shell corporation, uniqueness of land, claim for damages not being alternative claim, presence or absence of another willing purchaser, and balance of harm. Plaintiff's interest in potential value of his investment was significantly larger than sum purchaser paid into court. Master did not misapprehend evidence, exercise her discretion on wrong principles, nor make error in law which required interference with her decision.

Goyal v. 2623559 Ontario Inc. (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 4367, 2019 ONSC 1182, G. Dow J. (Ont. S.C.J.); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 18552, 2018 ONSC 6658, Master Abrams (Ont. S.C.J.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Failure of Ontario to ‘conduct and manage’ online gaming makes iGaming system illegal, says lawsuit

OCA orders new trial for accused whose lawyer ‘conscripted him into assisting his own prosecution’

Ontario Securities Commission welcomes Kevan Cowan as new chair

LSO opens applications for Legal Aid Ontario board, federal judiciary advisory committee

Appeal from certification order in bread price-fixing class action quashed

Stay refused for mother seeking to relocate child from Milton to Sarnia

Most Read Articles

Court awards 24 months’ notice to Air Canada employee terminated as part of COVID layoff

OCA orders new trial for accused whose lawyer ‘conscripted him into assisting his own prosecution’

LSO Convocation approves license proposal for non-lawyer family legal services providers

Recent ruling a 'cautionary tale' for start-ups, says IP lawyer