Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Buyers sought return of a real estate deposit after seller failed to provide clear title.

• The seller breached the agreement of purchase and sale by not delivering marketable title.

• Deposit was returned voluntarily before hearing, leaving interest and costs at issue.

• Seller requested delayed payment of interest and costs over several years, which was denied.

• Motion to add former lawyer as a third party was dismissed as irrelevant to the current application.

• Court fixed costs at $9,000 and allowed 60 days for payment of costs and interest.

Background and parties involved
The plaintiffs, Thomas Dudley Reburn and Elizabeth Boyd Reburn, entered into an agreement to purchase a property from the defendant, Kristen Alexandra Gignac, who was operating through 10117897 Canada Inc. o/a Re/Max Metropolis Realty. The transaction failed when the defendant could not provide clear title to the property, which constituted a breach of the purchase agreement.

The legal dispute and application
Following the breach, the plaintiffs sought to recover their $80,000 deposit. The application also requested pre-judgment interest and legal costs. Before the court could hear the matter, the real estate agent representing the seller returned the deposit voluntarily. The remaining issues before the court were the payment of interest and legal fees.

Seller’s defence and third-party motion
The defendant did not contest her liability for the interest and costs but requested extended time—several years—to make those payments. Additionally, she attempted to shift liability by moving to include her former lawyer as a third party in the proceeding, alleging that legal missteps were responsible for the deal's failure. The court dismissed this motion, finding the third-party claim unrelated to the narrow scope of the current application and belonging to a different cause of action. The defendant was advised she could pursue a separate claim if she wished.

Court’s findings on costs and interest
Justice Speyer accepted the plaintiffs' claim for pre-judgment interest and fixed the legal costs at $9,000. The amount was found to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The judge provided the defendant with 60 days to satisfy the payment but declined the request for a long-term payment plan, citing no sufficient justification for such a delay.

Final order and conclusion
The court issued an order reflecting these findings. The plaintiffs were awarded interest and $9,000 in costs, payable within 60 days. The attempt to draw the former lawyer into the litigation was rejected, and the matter concluded with a clear directive that the responsibility for the failed transaction rested with the seller.