Legal Blog

Real Estate Remedies

Benlezrah v. Dietz 2017 Ont SCJ

The purchaser in a real estate transaction wanted to close the transaction, but pay $210,000 into court for a determination later of whether he was entitled to an abatement on grounds that the property was 14% smaller in size than represented. The judge refused to do so. In effect, it would be the equivalent of a Mareva injunction, tying up the vendor’s sale funds without proper evidence to support a Mareva injunction. The judge held that the purchaser’s only options were as follows: rescind the transaction and refuse to close; close the transaction and sue for breach of contract, if available; or sue for specific performance with an abatement or, in the alternative, for damages and obtain a certificate of pending litigation.

Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.