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.