Ontario Civil


Sale did not fall through because of default of respondent

Application by applicant for release of $60,000 being held in trust. Parties were partners in gas station operation through two numbered companies. Parties had shareholder meeting, and it was agreed respondent would purchase applicant’s interest in business. Money held in trust represented deposit paid by respondent pursuant to share purchase agreement. Application dismissed. It was ordered that deposit be released to respondent. Share purchase agreement between parties was declared to be null and void. Agreement of purchase and sale did not fall through because of default of respondent, but rather it fell through because third party dependent condition could not be fulfilled. Completion of agreement was conditional on respondent obtaining applicant vendor’s release from his personal guarantees.

Shah v. Ahuja

(Mar. 6, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Bielby J., File No. CV-11-3300-00) 211 A.C.W.S. (3d) 711 (10 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?