Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board

Last updated
Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: 2012-03-20
Judgment: 2012-10-17
Citations 2012 SCC 51, [2012] 2 SCR 675
Docket No.33778 [1]
Prior historyAPPEAL and CROSS‑APPEAL from Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic School Board, 2010 ONCA 310, 104 OR (3d) 784(3 May 2010), setting aside Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 CanLII 3567, 78 R.P.R. (4th) 285(30 January 2009), Superior Court of Justice (Ontario,Canada)
RulingAppeal and cross‑appeal dismissed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Marshall Rothstein, Thomas Cromwell, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis
Reasons given
MajorityKarakatsanis J, joined by LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Rothstein, and Cromwell JJ
DissentMcLachlin CJ
Fish and Rothstein JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 SCC 51 , [2012] 2 SCR 675, is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of commercial law, with significant impact in the areas of:

Contents

Background

Southcott Estates Inc sued the Toronto Catholic District School Board for specific enforcement of a contract to sell it 4.78 acres (1.93 ha) of land. Southcott Estates Inc was a subsidiary of Ballantry Homes Inc, a developer, [2] and special purpose entity created just for purchasing and developing the land. The deal was conditional upon Southcott paying a 10% deposit, and the Toronto School Board getting severance permission from Toronto's Committee of Adjustment before a certain date. However, the Committee refused without reviewing a development plan for the land, which meant severance was not granted in time. Southcott sued for specific performance or damages.

At trial, Southcott stated it never had any intention to mitigate its loss and had not tried, that it had no assets other than the deposit from Ballantry Inc for the deposit, and it was never going to purchase any other land.

The courts below

At the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Spiegel J held that:

  • had the Board used its best efforts, the severance would likely have been granted, and the transaction would have been completed by the closing date; therefore, the Board’s breach caused Southcott’s loss; [3]
  • specific performance was not an appropriate remedy as the land did not have the quality of uniqueness; [4] but
  • Southcott was entitled to damages, which were assessed at $1,935,500. [lower-alpha 1] [5]

He rejected the Board's submission that Southcott had mitigated damages through several purchases subsequent to the breach of the agreement, declaring:

I find that these subsequent purchases were collateral, independent transactions that did not arise out of the consequences of the breach. In all the circumstances, I do not consider these transactions as mitigatory. [6]

The Board appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, where Sharpe JA held that:

  • the trial judge did not err in finding that the Board's breach was the cause of the failure to obtain a severance by the closing date, [7] but
  • he did err in law in finding that the Board had not shown that Southcott could have mitigated its losses, [8]
  • however, Southcott failed to make out a case for either specific performance or damages. [9]

As a result, nominal damages were awarded in the amount of $1.

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal the decision were granted by the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2011: [10]

  • Southcott, while not appealing the trial judge’s refusal to award specific performance, maintained its losses were not avoidable.
  • On cross-appeal, the Board questioned whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law in dismissing its argument relating to causation.

At the Supreme Court

In a 6-1 ruling, the appeal was dismissed with costs. As it was therefore unnecessary to consider the cross-appeal, it was dismissed without costs.

Majority opinion

Karakatsanis J began by summarizing the principles for mitigation previously adopted by the Court in Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sea Oil & General Corporation [11] where Lord Haldane's observation was endorsed:

The fundamental basis is thus compensation for pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach; but this first principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps. [12]

The principles have since been refined in further cases at the Court, as well as at the Federal Court of Appeal. [13]

Southcott had argued that, as a single-purpose company, it was impecunious and unable to mitigate without significant capital investment of the parent company or without the corporate mandate to do so. In addition, it would be reasonably foreseeable to those contracting with a single-purpose corporation that such an entity would have finite resources and a confined corporate mandate. [14] This was held to be insufficient:

  • The claims relating to specific performance and damages were premised upon resources that were not tied up as a result of the breach alleged, which in this case did not affect Southcott’s ability to obtain capital. [15]
  • In the absence of actual evidence of impecuniosity, finding that losses cannot be reasonably avoided simply because it is a single-purpose corporation within a larger group of companies, would give an unfair advantage to those conducting business through single-purpose corporations. [16]
  • As a separate legal entity, Southcott was required to mitigate by making diligent efforts to find a substitute property, because those who choose the benefits of incorporation must bear the corresponding burdens, including the duty to mitigate its losses. [17]

Asamera, when read together with Semelhago v. Paramadevan, holds that it "cannot be assumed that damages for breach of contract for the purchase and sale of real estate will be an inadequate remedy in all cases," [18] and specific performance will be available only where money cannot compensate fully for the loss, because of some “peculiar and special value” of the land to the plaintiff. [19]

Dissent

McLachlin CJ believed that the trial judge was correct in finding in fact that the Board had not proved that Southcott had an opportunity to mitigate, which was sufficient to dispose of the appeal. She would have reversed the Court of Appeal's ruling and restored the original verdict. She saw no basis on which to conclude that Southcott acted unreasonably in maintaining its suit for specific performance instead of mitigating its loss: [20]

  1. It had a “fair, real, and substantial justification” for claiming specific performance of the contract. [21] [22]
  2. The act of filing a claim for specific performance is inconsistent with the act of acquiring a substitute property. [23]
  3. Plaintiffs can never be certain that an action for specific performance will succeed, particularly as this is an equitable, discretionary remedy. Demanding that losses be mitigated unless success in obtaining specific performance is assured would deter valid claims for specific performance and hold plaintiffs to an impossible standard. [24]
  4. It can be fairly argued that Southcott did not act unreasonably in pursuing specific performance of the contract. Though the common law presumption of the uniqueness of real property no longer holds, a claim for specific performance may still be reasonable if a property has unique characteristics such that a substitute property is not readily available. [25] [26]
  5. Whether it could have obtained financing to buy a different property is at the very least speculative. [27]

Impact

The decision has raised significant debate on many of the issues it discussed:

  • Developers normally structure as single-purpose subsidiaries so that, if a market correction reduces land values, the parent company can pull the plug on the subsidiary and avoid liability for damages for not completing a purchase. If the purchaser had backed out, and the land had declined substantially in value, the seller would have been unable to recover any damages beyond the deposit. Therefore, it is arguably fair that Southcott failed to recover damages when the shoe was on the other foot. [28]
  • However, the decision (although seen to be well-based in legal theory) does not reflect the commercial reality of real estate development, where lenders are normally reluctant to advance funds to a company with limited assets that is embroiled in litigation, even when backed by a large corporate group. [29]
  • While Southcott appears to have significantly restricted the opportunity to pursue specific performance in relation to commercial transactions, [30] [31] it did not conclusively restrict specific performance to residential transactions. [32]
  • Although Southcott had admitted at trial that it made no attempts to purchase a comparable property, one can argue that a complete failure to make any efforts to mitigate is tantamount to that type of admission. Either way, damages for breach of contract continue to be the only remedy that the buyer should expect. [32]
  • Southcott is significant because it confirms that a claim for specific performance will not insulate a plaintiff from the duty to mitigate. It is also noteworthy because the majority as well as the dissent seem to accept by implication that impecuniosity is a defence to a failure to mitigate. [33]
  • In the event of termination of a contract for the purchase of land, a purchaser should carefully consider its capacity to both mitigate and complete the initial transaction before proceeding with a claim for specific performance. Steps should be taken at an early stage in order to prove the uniqueness of the property in question. [34] It can also be argued that such steps should be considered prior to the acquisition of the property. [35]

Notes

  1. ↑ representing the loss of a 60 percent chance to make profits in the amount of $3,225,827

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognized at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognized for the award of damages.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Specific performance</span> Equitable remedy in contract law

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is typically available in the sale of land law, but otherwise is not generally available if damages are an appropriate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, although performance may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

Consequential damages, otherwise known as special damages, are damages that can be proven to have occurred because of the failure of one party to meet a contractual obligation, a breach of contract. From a legal standpoint, an enforceable contract is present when it is: expressed by a valid offer and acceptance, has adequate consideration, mutual assent, capacity, and legality. Consequential damages go beyond the contract itself and into the actions that arise from the failure to fulfill. The type of claim giving rise to the damages, such as whether it is a breach of contract action or tort claim, can affect the rules or calculations associated with a given type of damages. For example, consequential damages are a potential type of expectation damages that arise in contract law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Expectation damages</span>

Expectation damages are damages recoverable from a breach of contract by the non-breaching party. An award of expectation damages protects the injured party's interest in realising the value of the expectancy that was created by the promise of the other party. Thus, the impact of the breach on the promisee is to be effectively "undone" with the award of expectation damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Good faith (law)</span> Implied covenant of honesty and fair dealing in contract law

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in a number of contract types in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.

<i>Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, 1997 CanLII 332, [1997] 3 SCR 701 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian employment law, particularly in determining damages arising from claims concerning wrongful dismissal.

<i>Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd</i>

Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1977] is an English contract law case, concerning unilateral contracts, and when embarking on the performance of an act for which an offer is open, at what point the offer may be withdrawn. In particular, Goff LJ observed that there would be a duty to not prevent full performance of terms in a unilateral offer, once performance had begun.

<i>Attorney General v Blake</i> English contract law case on damages for breach of contract

Attorney General v Blake[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.

Mitigation in law is the principle that a party who has suffered loss has to take reasonable action to minimize the amount of the loss suffered. As stated by the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal in Redpath Industries Ltd. v. Cisco (The), "It is well established that a party who suffers damages as a result of a breach of contract has a duty to mitigate those damages, that is to say that the wrongdoer cannot be called upon to pay for avoidable losses which would result in an increase in the quantum of damages payable to the injured party." The onus on showing a failure to mitigate damages is on the defendant. In the UK, Lord Leggatt describes the "function of the doctrine of mitigation" as enabling the law

to distinguish between effects on the claimant's financial position which are to be regarded as caused by the defendant's breach of contract and for which damages can therefore be recovered and effects which are attributed to the claimant's own action or inaction in response to the breach and for which the defendant is not liable.

<i>Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd</i> English contract law case on remedies

Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 is an English land law and English contract law case, concerning the measure and availability of damages for breach of negative covenant in circumstances where the court has confirmed that a covenant is legally enforceable and refused, as unconscionable, to issue an order for specific performance or an injunction.

Astley v Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651, is a leading defamation decision released by Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The case was publicized for the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, and the permanent injunction ordered against the defendant.

<i>AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd, 2014 SCC 12 was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that standardized Canadian jurisprudence with respect to the economic tort of unlawful means.

<i>Honda Canada Inc v Keays</i> Canadian Supreme Court employment law case

Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 SCR 362 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has had significant impact in Canadian employment law, in that it reformed the manner in which damages are to be awarded in cases of wrongful dismissal and it declared that such awards were not affected by the type of position an employee may have had.

<i>Bank of Montreal v Marcotte</i> Ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada

Bank of Montreal v Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55 is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with Amex Bank of Canada v. Adams, 2014 SCC 56 and Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, 2014 SCC 57, it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces.

<i>Bhasin v Hrynew</i> 2014 Supreme Court of Canada case

Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 is a leading Canadian contract law case, concerning good faith as a basic organizing principle in contractual relations in Canada's common law jurisdictions.

<i>Wilson v Alharayeri</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Wilson v Alharayeri is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada which significantly extends the application of the oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act to include non-corporate parties.

<i>Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc , 2017 SCC 63 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the duty of care that auditors have toward their clients during the course of a professional engagement.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 33778 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ Part of the Ballantry Group of Companies, see "Ballantry Homes website".
  3. ↑ ONSC, par. 93–116
  4. ↑ ONSC, par. 128–133
  5. ↑ ONSC, par. 144–146
  6. ↑ ONSC, par. 143
  7. ↑ ONCA, par. 11–14
  8. ↑ ONCA, par. 24–27
  9. ↑ ONCA, par. 30
  10. ↑ Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2010 CanLII 67504 (18 November 2010)
  11. ↑ Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sea Oil & General Corporation et al., 1978 CanLII 16 , [1979] 1 SCR 633(3 October 1978)
  12. ↑ British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd , [1912] AC 673, at p. 689
  13. ↑ SCC, par. 24–25
  14. ↑ SCC, par. 26
  15. ↑ SCC, par. 27
  16. ↑ SCC, par. 29
  17. ↑ SCC, par. 30
  18. ↑ Semelhago v. Paramadevan, 1996 CanLII 209 at par. 21, [1996] 2 SCR 415(20 June 1996)
  19. ↑ Adderley v. Dixon (1824), 1 Sim. & St. 607, 57 E.R. 239, at p. 240
  20. ↑ SCC, par. 65
  21. ↑ Asamera, at pp. 667-68
  22. ↑ SCC, par. 92
  23. ↑ SCC, par. 93
  24. ↑ SCC, par. 94
  25. ↑ Semelhago, at par. 22
  26. ↑ SCC, par. 95
  27. ↑ SCC, par. 96
  28. ↑ Peter S. Spiro (25 March 2014). "Quashing specific performance and piercing the veil in Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board". thecourt.ca.
  29. ↑ Geoff R. Hall (25 October 2012). "A Doctrine of Mitigation in the Supreme Court of Canada: A Triumph of Theory over Commercial Reality". McCarthy Tétrault, Canadian Appeals Monitor.
  30. ↑ John Mullen (23 January 2013). "Southcott Estates Case – The Death Knell for Specific Performance in Commercial Real Estate Transactions?". Keyser Mason Ball LLP.
  31. ↑ Mark S. Thompson; Mitch Dermer (13 December 2012). "The End of the Line for Specific Performance?". Singleton Urquhart.
  32. 1 2 "Case comment on Southcott Estates v. Toronto Catholic District School Board". Canadian Bar Association, National Civil Litigation Section Newsletter. July 2013.
  33. ↑ Jenna Anne de Jong (November 2012). "Supreme Court clarifies requirements of the duty to mitigate" (PDF). Norton Rose.
  34. ↑ Jonathan D. Born (November 2012). "Purchasing Property for Development or Investment? What to do if there is a Breach of Contract" (PDF). Weir Foulds LLP, Property Update.
  35. ↑ Michael B. Morgan (1 April 2013). "Don't get too specific". Building.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.