Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether Vesta Properties breached disclosure obligations under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act (REDMA) by failing to deliver updated completion dates on time

• Impact of a one-year acceleration in the project’s completion date on the enforceability of the plaintiffs’ pre-sale contracts

• Determination of whether the delay in disclosure constituted a misrepresentation of a material fact under REDMA

• Evaluation of whether two plaintiffs’ deposits exceeding 10% breached statutory limits or invalidated their contracts

• Analysis of whether the breach justified rescission and a return of deposits under section 23 of REDMA

• Assessment of whether summary trial was appropriate given the undisputed facts and legal clarity

Facts of the case

In this case, the plaintiffs, a group of individual buyers and a corporate entity, entered into six pre-sale contracts in March 2022 with Vesta Properties (Latimer) Ltd. for the purchase of strata units in a Langley, B.C. residential development known as Latimer Heights. The contracts were based on a disclosure statement provided by the developer, which estimated construction would complete between October 2025 and December 2025.

Subsequently, construction advanced faster than expected, and the developer submitted an amendment in February 2024 indicating the project would complete one year earlier—between October 2024 and December 2024. However, the plaintiffs were not informed of this amendment until August 28, 2024, nearly six months later. They claimed the developer failed to comply with REDMA’s disclosure obligations and that the contracts should be declared unenforceable. Additionally, two plaintiffs had inadvertently paid $9 more than the 10% deposit cap and raised this as a secondary ground for contract invalidation.

Outcome of the case

The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Justice Milman found that the failure to provide timely notice of the accelerated completion date was a breach of the developer's obligations under section 16 of REDMA. The court held that this failure constituted a misrepresentation of a material fact, which was reasonably relevant to the plaintiffs' decision to enter into the contracts. The judge determined that the six-month delay in notifying the plaintiffs was not “reasonable” under the statute and caused practical prejudice, particularly because the plaintiffs had relied on having more time to prepare for completion.

Although the developer had filed the amendment with the Superintendent within 30 days of learning of the change and delivered it more than 14 days before closing, the court emphasized that REDMA also requires timely delivery to purchasers. Because this condition was not met, the developer could not rely on the statutory exception under section 23(2)(b). Consequently, the contracts were declared unenforceable under section 23(1), and the plaintiffs were entitled to the return of their deposits with interest. The minor overpayments by two plaintiffs were deemed immaterial and did not independently invalidate those contracts. The plaintiffs were also awarded costs as the successful party.