Semelhago v. Paramadevan (1996), 197 N.R. 379 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Sinnadurai Paramadevan and Blossom Paramadevan (appellants) v. Bernard Semelhago (respondent)
(24325)
Indexed As: Semelhago v. Paramadevan
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,
McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
June 20, 1996.
Summary:
In 1986, Semelhago agreed to buy a house, then under construction, from Paramadevan for $205,000. Paramadevan reneged and his wife took title. Semelhago sued for specific performance or damages in lieu thereof.
At trial, in 1990, the market value of the property was $325,000. The trial judge allowed the action and Semelhago elected to take damages. He was awarded $120,000. The Paramadevans appealed the assessment of damages. Semelhago cross-appealed, taking the position that the assessment was correct, but if the court found otherwise, putting forward an alternative approach.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 73 O.A.C. 295, allowed the appeal and cross-appeal and assessed damages of $81,733.96. The Paramadevans appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Sale of Land – Topic 8755
Remedies of purchaser – Damages – In lieu of specific performance – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the circumstances under which specific performance would be an appropriate remedy for breach of a contract for the sale of land, the principles which apply to the assessment of damages in lieu of specific performance and the date at which damages should be assessed – See paragraphs 1 to 26 – The court opined that “[s]pecific performance should … not be granted as a matter of course absent evidence that the property is unique to the extent that its substitute would not be readily available.” – See paragraph 21.
Sale of Land – Topic 8755
Remedies of purchaser – Damages – In lieu of specific performance – In 1986, Semelhago agreed to buy a house, then under construction, from Paramadevan for $205,000 – Paramadevan reneged and his wife took title – At trial, in 1990, the market value of the property was $325,000 – The trial judge allowed Semelhago’s action for specific performance – Semelhago elected to take damages and was awarded $120,000 – The Ontario Court of Appeal reduced the damages to $81,733.96, based on events as the trial judge found they would have unfolded – The Paramadevans appealed – The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Sale of Land – Topic 8774
Remedies of purchaser – Damages – Measure of – [See both
Sale of Land – Topic 8755
].
Cases Noticed:
306793 Ontario Ltd. v. Rimes (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 79 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1979] 2 S.C.R. xi; 30 N.R. 618, refd to. [para. 4 et seq.].
Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Stack, [1924] A.C. 851 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 11].
Wroth v. Tyler, [1974] Ch. 30, refd to. [para. 11 et seq.].
Johnson v. Agnew, [1980] A.C. 367 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 11, 13, 16].
Mavretic et al. v. Bowman et al., [1993] 4 W.W.R. 329; 23 B.C.A.C. 298; 39 W.A.C. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
Adderley v. Dixon (1824), 1 Sim. & St. 607; 57 E.R. 239, refd to. [paras. 20, 21].
Roberto v. Bumb, [1943] O.R. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
Kloepfer Wholesale Hardware and Automotive Co. v. Roy, [1952] S.C.R. 465, refd to. [para. 21].
Nepean Carleton Developments Ltd. v. Hope et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 427; 13 N.R. 7, refd to. [para. 21].
Chaulk v. Fairview Construction Ltd. (1977), 14 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 33 A.P.R. 13 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
Baud Corp., N.V. v. Brook, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 633; 23 N.R. 181; 12 A.R. 271, refd to. [para. 21].
Asamera Oil Corp. v. Seal Oil & General Corp. – see Baud Corp., N.V. v. Brook.
McNabb v. Smith (1981), 124 D.L.R.(3d) 547 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 21].
Authors and Works Noticed:
McGregor on Damages (13th Ed. 1972), p. 149 [para. 14].
Counsel:
John Swan and Barbra H. Miller, for the appellants;
Martin Sclisizzi and Orlando Da Silva, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Aird & Berlis, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;
Borden & Elliot, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on January 31, 1996, by La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The decision of the court was delivered on June 20, 1996, and the following opinions were filed:
Sopinka, J. (Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 26;
La Forest, J., see paragraph 27.
