CAUTION: We have been advised that fraudulent emails with a modified domain name have been sent by a source purporting to be from Aird & Berlis LLP. These communications are not legitimate and are not from Aird & Berlis LLP. Disregard any such emails and do not engage with the sender or the email in any way. Please report the attempted fraud by contacting the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre and by emailing Aird & Berlis LLP at help@airdberlis.com.

Back to all publications
May 13, 2020

The Law of Deposits

By Angela Swan and Norman I. Kahn

The law regarding standard real estate transactions is or should be straightforward. Unfortunately, courts — and particularly courts that should know much better — continue to make serious mistakes, mistakes that will cost clients a lot of money to correct.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now repeated, in just about eight months, a serious mistake in the law of deposits. The initial mistake was made in Benedetto v. 2453912 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONCA 149, 86 B.L.R. (5th) 1, 98 R.P.R. (5th) 177 (Hourigan, Miller & Paciocco JJ.A.). In that case, two serious mistakes were made. First, the Court of Appeal completely misunderstood the law of pre-incorporation contracts and the consequences of the disclaimer of that “contract” under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, subsection 21(2.1). On the disclaimer of the contract, the person who entered into the contract on behalf of a the corporation-to-be-incorporated is, subject to subsection 21(4), not bound by it. The Court of Appeal nevertheless held that the person, the plaintiff, had no right to recover the deposit he had paid, notwithstanding that the contract had not been adopted and he had disclaimed personal liability under subsection 21(4).

The second mistake was in the Court of Appeal’s statement of the law of deposits. Miller J.A. said:

[7]        The motion judge provided a helpful summary of the law: a deposit is not part of the contract of purchase and sale, but “stands on its own as an ‛ancient invention of the law designed to motivate contracting parties to carry through with their bargains,’ ‛something which binds the contract and guarantees its performance,’ and is an ‛earnest to bind the bargain so entered into, and creates by the fear of its forfeiture a motive in the payer to perform the rest of the contract.’”

(Emphasis added.)

How on earth can “a deposit not be part of the contract of purchase and sale”? The obligation to pay the deposit is part of the agreement of purchase and sale, where, of course, the obligation to pay the deposit and its treatment is specified. The obligation to pay the deposit can only come from the agreement of purchase and sale the parties, the vendor and purchaser, have executed; how then can the deposit not be part of that agreement? It is simply anachronistic to rely on a case decided in 1884 when the practice of conveyancers in England was very different from the current practice in Canada.

That characterization of the source or nature of the deposit led the court to hold that the vendor’s right to retain the deposit survived the disclaimer of the agreement by the plaintiff. In that respect, the statement of Miller J.A. that the deposit gives the plaintiff an incentive to perform the contract is, of course, nonsense; you can't have an incentive to perform a contract that has been disclaimed and is, as a result, unenforceable. Section 21 of the OBCA makes it clear that the vendor who makes a pre-incorporation contract can have no expectation, let alone a reasonable expectation, that the corporation will perform the contract; if vendors don’t want to assume that risk, then they must not agree to sell land or anything by a pre-incorporation contract.

Not content with muddying the waters in this case, the Court of Appeal quoted from Benedetto and reproduced the same paragraph in Azzarello v. Shawqi, 2019 ONCA 820, para. 46 (Feldman, Paciocco & Fairburn JJ.A).

Apart from giving credence to the mistake made by Miller J.A., Feldman J.A. nevertheless did achieve the correct result by holding that what is paid as a deposit and forfeited on the purchaser’s default, can be set off against any amount awarded to the vendor as damages. In fact, this result would seem to reinforce the argument that for the setoff against an award of damages to be applicable, the deposit is to be considered part of the agreement of purchase and sale and not be considered its own agreement, against which there is nothing to set off.

It is alarming to find a normally careful court make such serious mistakes, and to repeat them. What is a solicitor to do? Do the usual agreements for the purchase and sale of land have to be re-drafted to make it clear that the obligation to pay the deposit is part of the agreement of purchase and sale? Does the drafter of a pre-incorporation contract now have to spell out, as part of the contract, what the Ontario Business Corporations Act or Canada Business Corporations Act say?

Areas of Expertise

Related Publications

Publications Article
Treat Other Counsel How You Wish to Be Treated: The Rules Versus the Golden Rule By Josh Suttner and Simon Dugas Nov 30, 2021 When a plaintiff serves a statement of claim, the Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) require ... When a plaintiff serves a statement of claim, the Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) require that a defendant must serve a statement of defence within a prescribed time (usually 20 days), failing which the plaintiff can note the defendant in default and obtain default jud...
Publications Article
Rethinking Diversity in Canada’s Capital Markets: Beyond Gender By Melanie Cole, Amy Marcen-Gaudaur, Meredith McCann and Angela Oh Nov 29, 2021 Almost seven years following the adoption of the gender focused corporate governance disclosure r... Almost seven years following the adoption of the gender focused corporate governance disclosure rules set out in National Instrument 58-101 Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices, recent data published by the Canadian Securities Administrators in Multilateral Staff Notice 58-313 Review o...
Publications Article
Modernizing Ontario’s Capital Markets: Capital Markets Act (Ontario) By Melanie Cole, Meredith McCann and Portia Biswas Nov 29, 2021 On October 12, 2021, the Government of Ontario published the draft Capital Markets Act, which is ... On October 12, 2021, the Government of Ontario published the draft Capital Markets Act, which is designed to streamline and modernize the regulatory framework of the province’s capital markets. If approved, the CMA will replace both the Securities Act (Ontario) and the Commodity Futures A...