Digest: Munday v Deshwar, 2018 SKQB 208

DateJuly 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 208

Docket Number: QBG 1841/13 JCR , QB17590

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-07-18

Judges:

  • Leurer

Subjects:

  • Real Property � Agreement for Sale � Validity
  • Real Property � Agreement for Sale � Cancellation
  • Contract Law � Interpretation
  • Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 1-4

Digest: The plaintiff became a tenant of the defendants in 2004. There was no written lease but the parties agreed that the plaintiff was to pay rent of $500 per month and was responsible for the cost of utilities. Shortly after the plaintiff took possession, the parties began discussing the sale of the property. They then negotiated an agreement for sale (AFS) that included that the plaintiff would continue making the monthly payment, which would be credited to property taxes and insurance that the defendants would continue to pay, then towards interest, and finally in reduction of the principal. The plaintiff would become responsible for the upkeep of the property. The plaintiff claimed that the purchase price was $38,000. The defendants maintained that no agreement was ever reached and that the plaintiff continued as a tenant. As such, he made a number of unauthorized renovations to the house and breached numerous city bylaws. As a result, the defendants eventually refused to take any more payments from him after June 2012. They were unsuccessful in having him removed from possession. The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the defendants in 2013 whereby he alleged the existence of a rent-to-own arrangement between them at the purchase price of $38,000. He claimed that he made improvements to the property in reliance on the existence of the agreement and made sufficient payments to extinguish his payment obligations to the defendants under the agreement. He asked for judgment transferring title of the property to him. In their statement of defence, the defendants, also self-represented, denied that an agreement had been reached. They insisted that if there was an AFS, the purchase price was $43,000. They commenced their own action in 2016 in which they stated that the plaintiff breached his tenancy agreement with them and requested an order of possession. Alternatively, if there was an AFS, the plaintiff had failed to pay sums owing under it since 2012 and asked for an order pursuant to The Agreements of Sale Cancellation Act (ASCA) and The Land Contracts (Actions) Act cancelling...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT