Key Issue: Whether the defendant, Sandeep Kaur Dhanesar, exercised contractual discretion reasonably and in good faith under the “substantial completion” clause in a real estate contract.

Background

• The plaintiffs, Tejinder & Iqbal Pandher, agreed to build and sell a home in Abbotsford for $1,515,000, with a $75,000 deposit.
• The contract required an unconditional occupancy certificate or other evidence satisfactory to the buyer of completion.
• The plaintiffs obtained a provisional occupancy permit on October 6, 2022, a day before closing.
• The defendant refused to complete the purchase, claiming the home was not substantially complete.
• The plaintiffs resold the property at a $325,000 loss and sued for damages.

Court’s Findings

1. Contract Interpretation: The “substantial completion” clause required an objective standard of satisfaction, not the defendant’s sole discretion.
2. Defendant’s Conduct: She acted unreasonably and in bad faith, focusing solely on the final occupancy permit while ignoring substantial evidence of completion.
3. Breach & Damages: The defendant breached the contract; plaintiffs were awarded $339,102.07, including resale loss, legal fees, mortgage interest, strata fees, and other costs.
4. Costs: Plaintiffs entitled to costs, subject to further submissions.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the defendant liable for the financial loss.