1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. et al., (1995) 83 O.A.C. 391 (CA)
Judge | Lacourcière, McKinlay and Abella, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | Friday September 15, 1995 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | (1995), 83 O.A.C. 391 (CA) |
1110049 Ont. v. Exclusive Diamonds (1995), 83 O.A.C. 391 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
1110049 Ontario Ltd. (applicant/respondent) v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc., Alp Iskin and Ara Run (respondents/appellants)
(C21570)
Indexed As: 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. et al.
Ontario Court of Appeal
Lacourcière, McKinlay and Abella, JJ.A.
September 15, 1995.
Summary:
Run entered into an agreement to sell his jewellery store to 1110049. Run refused to complete the sale, claiming that the agreement was unconscionable. The motions judge ordered specific performance. Run appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.
Contracts - Topic 753
Parties - Capacity - Persons of unsound mind and drunkards - Stress - Run entered into an agreement to sell his jewellery store to 1110049 - Run had carried on the store with his wife who had been brutally murdered shortly before the agreement was entered into - Run claimed that the sale was unconscionable because, at the time it was agreed upon, he was suffering from deep depression and disorientation as a result of his wife's death - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the agreement was not unconscionable - The court stated that the agreement was for fair market value and Run had the benefit of legal advice - See paragraphs 2 to 3.
Contracts - Topic 4106
Remedies for breach - Specific performance - When available - Run entered into an agreement to sell his jewellery store to 1110049 - Run had carried on the store with his wife who had been brutally murdered shortly before the agreement was entered into - Run refused to complete the sale - The motions judge ordered specific performance - Run claimed that damages were appropriate - 110049, who owned another jewellery store in the same mall, claimed that the agreement was unique because of the characteristics of the property involved and the opportunity it provided - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that specific performance should not be ordered where damages would suffice - The court stated that the pressure on Run because of his trauma was an added reason to refuse specific performance - See paragraphs 4 to 10.
Contracts - Topic 9350
Unconscionable transactions relief - Condition for relief - What constitutes harsh and unconscionable - [See Contracts - Topic 753].
Cases Noticed:
Wilson v. R., [1938] S.C.R. 317, dist. [para. 3].
Counsel:
Harold G. Elstons, for the appellant;
Kenneth A. Beallor, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 11, 1995, by Lacourcière, McKinlay and Abella, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
McKinlay, J.A., delivered the following judgment which was endorsed on the appeal record and released on September 15, 1995.
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Table of cases
...OTC 311 (Gen Div) ........................................... 523, 525 1110049 Ontario Ltd v Exclusive Diamonds Inc (1995), 25 OR (3d) 417, 83 OAC 391 (CA) ..........................................................................................471 1124259 BC Ltd v 1069185 BC Ltd, 2018 BCS......
-
Table of Cases
...52 O.T.C. 311 (Gen. Div.) ......................373, 376 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 417, 83 O.A.C. 391 (C.A.) ..................................................337–38 1244034 Alberta Ltd. v. Walton International Group Inc., 2007 ABCA 372 .................
-
Table of cases
...757 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 417, [1995] O.J. No. 2690, 83 O.A.C. 391 (C.A.) .......... 982, 1005 1174538 Ontario Ltd. v. Barzel Windsor (1984) Inc., [1999] O.J. No. 5091, 28 R.P.R. (3d) 256 (S.C.J.) ........................................ 986 11......
-
1244034 Alberta Ltd. v. Walton International Group Inc. et al.,
...Ontario Ltd. et al. (1999), 89 O.T.C. 112 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 3]. 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. et al. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 391; 25 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1174538 Ontario Ltd. v. Barzel Windsor (1984) Inc. et al., [1999] O.T.C. Uned. C01; 29 R.P.R.(3d) ......
-
1244034 Alberta Ltd. v. Walton International Group Inc. et al.,
...Ontario Ltd. et al. (1999), 89 O.T.C. 112 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 3]. 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. et al. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 391; 25 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1174538 Ontario Ltd. v. Barzel Windsor (1984) Inc. et al., [1999] O.T.C. Uned. C01; 29 R.P.R.(3d) ......
-
Erie Sand and Gravel Limited v. Tri-B Acres Inc, 2009 ONCA 709
...24]. Haskett v. O'Neil, [1939] 4 D.L.R. 598 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 91]. 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. et al. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 391; 25 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Semelhago v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415; 197 N.R. 379; 91 O.A.C. 379, refd to. [para. 112......
-
101090442 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Harle, 2014 SKCA 6
...440 A.R. 177; 438 W.A.C. 177; 2008 ABCA 341, refd to. [paras. 84, 128]. 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. et al. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 391; 25 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 91]. Chan v. Chadha Construction & Investments Ltd. et al. (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 175; 226 W.A.C. 1......
-
Bowser v. Prager, (1999) 95 O.T.C. 302 (SC)
...- In lieu or specific performance - See paragraphs 1 to 16. Cases Noticed: 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. et al. (1995), 83 O.A.C. 391; 25 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, sect. 21(1) [para. 24]; sect. 21(2) [para. ......
-
Table of cases
...OTC 311 (Gen Div) ........................................... 523, 525 1110049 Ontario Ltd v Exclusive Diamonds Inc (1995), 25 OR (3d) 417, 83 OAC 391 (CA) ..........................................................................................471 1124259 BC Ltd v 1069185 BC Ltd, 2018 BCS......
-
Table of Cases
...52 O.T.C. 311 (Gen. Div.) ......................373, 376 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 417, 83 O.A.C. 391 (C.A.) ..................................................337–38 1244034 Alberta Ltd. v. Walton International Group Inc., 2007 ABCA 372 .................
-
Table of cases
...757 1110049 Ontario Ltd. v. Exclusive Diamonds Inc. (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 417, [1995] O.J. No. 2690, 83 O.A.C. 391 (C.A.) .......... 982, 1005 1174538 Ontario Ltd. v. Barzel Windsor (1984) Inc., [1999] O.J. No. 5091, 28 R.P.R. (3d) 256 (S.C.J.) ........................................ 986 11......