Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central dispute concerns whether the APS was void because it was allegedly executed after the offer's irrevocable date and time had expired.
• Credibility was a major issue, as the court found Ms. Irps-Bleeker's testimony to be internally inconsistent and contradicted by her own prior sworn statements.
• Duress was raised as an alternative ground to void the APS, with Ms. Irps-Bleeker arguing she signed under economic and situational pressure.
• Two key witnesses — the only individuals present when Groenberg Farms executed the APS on May 31, 2008 — died before trial, significantly complicating the evidentiary record.
• Equitable defences of acquiescence and laches were preserved by Groenberg Farms under s. 2 of the Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, though the court did not need to reach them.
• Prior inconsistent statements made by Ms. Irps-Bleeker in a June 12, 2008 affidavit directly contradicted her trial testimony regarding her agreement to the $830,000 counteroffer.

Facts of the case

Monika Irps-Bleeker was the former co-owner, in equal shares with her then-husband Simon Bleeker, of a 200-acre farm in Wingham, Ontario. After the couple separated in November 1996, Ms. Irps-Bleeker obtained an interim court order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home on March 27, 1997, and continued to reside there with her children while leasing the farmland to a third party. By 2006, Mr. Bleeker sought to resolve outstanding family law issues and finalize the divorce, seeking to sell the farm and divide the proceeds. Ms. Irps-Bleeker, who was claiming retroactive child support and post-separation adjustments, wanted to purchase his half-interest instead. When she failed to produce proof of financing despite multiple requests, Mr. Bleeker brought a successful motion under the Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4. On April 30, 2008, Justice Hockin ordered the farm listed for sale through a joint listing by two court-appointed real estate agents — Werner Ritgen, acting for Ms. Irps-Bleeker, and Cor Van Gaalen, acting for Mr. Bleeker. The farm was listed at $849,000.

Groenberg Farms Inc. made its first offer of $750,000 on May 8, 2008, which was rejected. A second offer of $811,000 was made on May 27, 2008, with an irrevocability date of May 30, 2008 at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Irps-Bleeker was reluctant to engage with the offer, wishing to defer any decision until after a scheduled Settlement Conference on June 11, 2008. Her family law lawyer, Mary Cull, warned her of the risk of a court order being obtained to dispense with her consent if she failed to respond. After communications between the parties' lawyers and the real estate agents, a counteroffer at $830,000 — including a condition allowing Ms. Irps-Bleeker to rent the farmhouse after closing — was prepared. Mr. Van Gaalen attended Ms. Irps-Bleeker's home on the evening of May 30, 2008, where she initialled the amended APS, including the irrevocability date, and later affixed her full signature. Mr. Bleeker also signed that evening. The following morning, May 31, 2008, Nick Beyersbergen executed the APS at around 11:00 a.m. on behalf of Groenberg Farms, accepting the counteroffer. Ms. Irps-Bleeker's attempt to withdraw the counteroffer, communicated by Ms. Cull by fax at 11:20 a.m. that same morning, came too late — the deal had already been concluded. The property transaction closed on January 9, 2009.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

The operative document was a standard Agreement of Purchase and Sale form. The key clause in dispute was the irrevocability provision, which fixed the deadline by which the counteroffer had to be accepted. Ms. Irps-Bleeker maintained that when she initialled the APS on the evening of May 30, 2008, the irrevocability date remained May 30, 2008 at 8:00 p.m. — meaning the counteroffer had already expired, or would expire imminently, before it could be accepted. All three copies of the APS that were independently initialled by the parties showed a handwritten change to the irrevocability date from May 30 to May 31, 2008. Ms. Irps-Bleeker alleged this change was inserted after she had already initialled the document. The APS also incorporated Schedule B, a rental condition drafted by Ms. Cull providing Ms. Irps-Bleeker with the option to rent the farmhouse and residential yard from Groenberg Farms for $400 per month for 18 months following the closing date. Justice Hockin's April 30, 2008 order was also relevant, as it required Ms. Irps-Bleeker to cooperate with the sale and stipulated that proceeds would be held in trust pending further court order, and that each party retained a right of first refusal.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court's analysis centred on two questions: whether the APS was void for having been accepted after the irrevocability date, and whether Ms. Irps-Bleeker had signed it under duress.

On the irrevocability issue, Justice Petersen rejected Ms. Irps-Bleeker's evidence as not credible. The court found her testimony to be internally inconsistent — she initially claimed she did not read the document when initialling it, yet later insisted she could identify precisely which date change she was initialling and that the May 31 amendment was not present at the time. Her certainty at trial also contradicted statements she had made under oath in March 2016, when she twice expressed uncertainty about whether she had initialled the date change from May 30 to May 31 when Mr. Van Gaalen visited her home. Additionally, her trial testimony contradicted sworn statements made in a June 12, 2008 affidavit, in which she deposed that she and Mr. Bleeker had agreed to sign back a counteroffer of $830,000 to Groenberg Farms, and that this was confirmed to her by Ms. Cull at approximately 6:23 p.m. on May 30, 2008.

The court accepted Mr. Van Gaalen's evidence that the irrevocability date had already been changed to May 31, 2008 before he attended Ms. Irps-Bleeker's home, finding it implausible that he would have prepared a counteroffer set to expire within 30 minutes of the parties signing it. The court also drew adverse inferences from the fact that Ms. Irps-Bleeker did not mention to Ms. Cull the following morning that the counteroffer was allegedly void — instead, she instructed Ms. Cull to withdraw it, conduct consistent with her knowing the counteroffer remained open.

On duress, the court acknowledged that Ms. Irps-Bleeker was under real pressure — from Justice Hockin's order requiring her cooperation, and from Ms. Feagan's threat to obtain a further court order dispensing with her consent. However, the court found this pressure was lawful and not illegitimate within the meaning required to establish economic duress, citing Stott v. Merit Investment Corp. (1988), 48 D.L.R. (4th) 288 (Ont. C.A.); Manuel v. Lafarge et al., 2024 ONSC 3790; Rose-Terra Investments Inc. v. Chetti, 2024 ONCA 427; and Correa v. Valstar Homes (Oakville Sixth Line) Inc., 2025 ONCA 156. The evidence did not support a finding that Ms. Irps-Bleeker was deprived of her free will.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice C. Petersen dismissed Ms. Irps-Bleeker's action in its entirety, finding that the sale of the farm property on January 9, 2009 was based on a valid and enforceable APS. As the successful party, Groenberg Farms Inc. was found to be presumptively entitled to its costs, subject to any Offers to Settle or other relevant factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure. No specific monetary amount was awarded in the judgment — the quantum of costs was left to be determined following written submissions or settlement between the parties.