Specific performance was appropriate remedy

Parties engaged in litigation concerning sale of property where applicant operated animal clinic. Parties entered into settlement agreement, and applicant complied with terms but respondent refused to sell property on date specified as value of property had increased and respondent alleged settlement agreement was void. Application to enforce settlement agreement was granted. Respondent appealed. Appeal dismissed. Application judge erred in finding that existence of settlement agreement allowed her to order specific performance without undertaking analysis to determine if this was appropriate remedy. Property was unique, applicant was ready, willing and able to close on purchase of property on date specified in agreement, there were no facts disentitling applicant to equitable relief, and damages were not suitable alternative. Specific performance was appropriate remedy, and sale was to be completed within 30 days of release of decision.

Paterson Veterinary Professional Corporation v. Stilton Corp. Ltd. (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 15048, 2019 ONCA 746, D.M. Paciocco J.A., A. Harvison Young J.A., and M. Jamal J.A. (Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 14422, 2018 ONSC 4952, Tzimas J. (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