A Canadian court has ordered a homebuyer to forfeit her $70,000 deposit after she failed to complete a $1.388 million property purchase in Vaughan, Ontario. Reesa Garber had agreed to buy the property from Sharon and Alexander Laraia, with the transaction scheduled to close on July 16, 2024. However, after waiving the financing condition, she later told the sellers that she could not secure the mortgage needed to complete the purchase.She also asked them to terminate the agreement and relist the property to limit potential losses. According to the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that her emails amounted to an anticipatory breach of contract and ruled that the sellers were entitled to keep the deposit.
Why a $1.38 million home purchase in Vaughan turned into a buyer-seller dispute
The property at 81 Littleriver Court in Vaughan was marketed for sale by Catherine Artenosi, a realtor with Coldwell Banker The Real Estate Centre. Garber, who was a registered real estate agent in Ontario, submitted an offer on April 28, 2024, to buy the property for $1,388,000. The sellers accepted the offer. The agreement required a $70,000 deposit upon acceptance and set July 16, 2024, as the completion date.The purchase was initially conditional on financing until May 3, 2024. On that date, Garber fulfilled the financing condition and removed the financial terms, making the agreement firm. She paid the deposit, which remained in the brokerage’s trust account.On June 13, 2024, Garber contacted the sellers’ listing agent and said she was having difficulty selling her own property and could not secure mortgage financing. She explained that she needed to sell her property to fund the purchase. The agreement did not make the purchase conditional on the sale of her property. The sellers said they would hold her to the contract.The following day, Garber contacted the office of the real estate lawyer, Giancarlo Soppelsa, and repeated that she could not obtain financing and would be unable to complete the transaction on the agreed date.She asked either to terminate the agreement or extend the completion date. The sellers refused both requests and said they expected the purchase to proceed as agreed.
Buyer formally backed out of the $1.38 million deal before closing
Garber repeated on June 21 that she could not complete the purchase because she had been unable to sell her property and obtain sufficient financing. On June 24, she sent a signed mutual release seeking to end the agreement. In the same communication, she demanded that the sellers immediately re-list the property to mitigate potential damages.She followed up through counsel and, on June 26, again said she would not complete the transaction. The sellers’ lawyer wrote to her counsel on June 27 that her conduct amounted to an anticipatory breach, accepted the breach and reserved the sellers’ right to seek damages and forfeiture of the deposit. Justice André found the messages clear and unequivocal.
Court dismissed buyer’s claims and ordered release of $70,000 deposit
The court rejected Garber’s argument that her attempts to obtain financing and arrange an appraisal revived the agreement. Justice André said the sellers had no contractual obligation to provide access to the property for financing purposes after the agreement had ended.The sellers had offered to revive the transaction on July 3, 2024, on new terms, including an additional $20,000 deposit and a direction releasing the deposit if the purchase failed to close again.Garber did not accept the offer. The judge found that the unsuccessful attempt to revive the agreement did not change the consequences of her earlier breach. The court ordered the release of her $70,000 deposit to the sellers and directed her to pay them $35,000 in costs within 90 days.Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available court records published by the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII). The Times of India has not independently verified the details of the property transaction, the parties involved, or the court proceedings mentioned in the article.