Law360 Canada ( October 23, 2024, 1:30 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from a motion judge’s finding that respondents were entitled to recover their deposit on the grounds that the judge made an extricable error of law. The respondent deposited $350,000 as part of the agreement to purchase a property from the appellant. The agreement stipulated that if the seller failed to comply and the buyer declined to waive their rights, the contract would be terminated, and the buyer's deposit would be refunded. During the transaction process, the respondent discovered two outstanding work permits issued by the City of Toronto concerning the property. Despite the appellant's assurance that both permits had been removed, one permit remained open. The respondent repeatedly sought an extension of the closing date due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the appellant refused. Subsequently, the respondent assigned the agreement to a newly incorporated company, Storekey, which then terminated the agreement due to the appellant's failure to remove the outstanding work permit. The appellant sued the respondents for payment of the $350,000 deposit, damages for breach of the agreement, and punitive damages, alleging that the assignment to Storekey was done in bad faith. The respondents counterclaimed for the return of the deposit. The motion judge ruled in favour of the respondents, stating that the outstanding work permit entitled them to terminate the agreement, and ordered the return of the $350,000 deposit. The judge also rejected the appellant's claim of bad faith assignment. The appellant submitted that the standard of review on appeal was correctness. It contended that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale ("APS") was a standard form contract and that the motion judge's interpretation of it was a question of law....