Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the plaintiff could provide good title to a residential property due to an undisclosed second driveway partially encroaching on neighboring land.

• Defendant refused to complete the purchase without an easement for the second driveway from adjoining property owners.

• The agreement of purchase and sale did not mention the second driveway or require an easement.

• The court considered whether the absence of the easement constituted a failure to provide good and marketable title.

• No evidence supported the defendant’s claim of misrepresentation or detrimental reliance regarding the second driveway.

• Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, with damages to be determined at a later hearing.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and facts

Cassandra McLean, the plaintiff, listed her residential property for sale in Placentia, Newfoundland and Labrador. The property listing described a single gravel driveway and noted that landscaping remained to be completed. On April 4, 2024, McLean and the defendant, Matthew J. Brenton, entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for $150,000. The agreement included a clause that the purchaser was buying the property “as is, sight unseen” and assumed all risks by doing so. The original survey attached to the agreement showed only one driveway.

A subsequent updated survey, received on April 30, 2024, revealed a second gravel driveway that partially extended onto a neighboring property. Brenton’s lawyer requested that McLean obtain a boundary agreement (an easement) from the neighboring property owners to allow use of the full second driveway. The neighboring owners refused to grant the easement. Despite this, the second driveway could still be used as a single-car driveway within the property’s boundaries, and the first driveway remained available.

The closing date for the transaction was extended several times, with Brenton first viewing the property on the final closing date, May 6, 2024. On that day, Brenton’s legal representatives indicated they would not close the transaction without the boundary agreement. McLean’s lawyer responded that she could not secure the easement and that the “as is, sight unseen” clause applied. Brenton’s lawyer then terminated the deal, citing the lack of an agreement for the full driveway.

Legal analysis and outcome

The court addressed whether the matter was appropriate for summary judgment and whether the defendant had a valid basis to refuse to complete the purchase. Both parties agreed that summary judgment was suitable. The court found that the dispute could be resolved without a full trial, as there were no material factual issues in dispute.

The main legal issue was whether McLean had provided good and marketable title as required by the agreement. The court found that the property boundaries had not changed between the original and updated surveys, and McLean could convey what Brenton had contracted to purchase. The absence of an easement for the second driveway did not constitute a defect in title, as McLean could not grant rights over land she did not own. The court also found no evidence of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation by McLean regarding the second driveway, nor did Brenton rely to his detriment on any such representation.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Brenton had no legal basis to repudiate the agreement. Summary judgment was granted in favor of McLean, making Brenton liable for damages resulting from his refusal to complete the purchase. The quantification of damages was deferred to a later hearing. The court also awarded costs to McLean as per the standard scale.