Ontario Appeal Court Upholds Refusal to Enforce Property Sale Agreement

Ruling sets aside order for accounting of rent and insurance funds In litigation involving a residential investment property jointly owned by three brothers since 1998, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a judge’s refusal to enforce an alleged agreement for one brother to sell his one-third interest to the two others. Brothers Domenic, Bruno, and Salvatore owned a triplex property in Toronto. The parties agreed that a February 2019 oral agreement aimed to arrange the sale of Bruno’s interest to his brothers. However, they disagreed on the agreement’s enforceability and details. Domenic and Bruno brought separate applications, which the Ontario Superior Court of Justice consolidated and heard together. First, Domenic commenced a contractual breach application. He sought a declaration of the oral agreement’s validity and a specific performance order to enforce the sale of Bruno’s interest. Second, Bruno applied for a partition and sale, with net proceeds divided equally among the brothers. Bruno also requested an order for an accounting of rent and insurance funds Domenic had received since 1992, as well as an order granting Bruno a third of the proceeds. On July 17, 2025, in Rosso v. Rosso, 2025 ONSC 4177, Justice Ira Parghi of the Superior Court denied Domenic’s contractual breach application and partly granted Bruno’s partition and sale application. She issued orders for: In dismissing Domenic’s application, the trial judge saw no oral contract for Domenic and Salvatore to buy Bruno’s one-third interest. Alternatively, if there were an oral contract, the judge would have considered it unenforceable under Ontario’s Statute of Frauds, 1990. Even if the contract were enforceable, the trial judge would have determined that Bruno did not breach the contract and did not need to transfer his interest because Domenic and Salvatore had repudiated the agreement. Even if Bruno had breached the contract, the trial judge would have deemed Domenic entitled only to damages, not specific performance. As for Bruno’s application, the trial judge found him presumptively entitled to partition and sale, given the lack of evidence that she should exercise her narrow discretion to refuse this remedy. In all the circumstances, the trial judge considered a sale more advantageous to the parties than a partition. On Oct. 10, 2025, in Rosso v. Rosso, 2025 ONSC 5763, Justice Parghi issued a costs endorsement awarding the successful parties the following amounts, including fees, disbursements, and taxes: In a notice of appeal, Domenic challenged the trial judge’s orders and the dismissal of the contractual breach application. Through three motions, he wanted to: On Nov. 27, 2025, in Rosso v. Rosso, 2025 ONCA 822, Justice David Paciocco of the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the first motion to transfer the appeal, allowed the second motion to extend the time, and granted the third motion for a stay pending appeal. In dismissing the first motion, the motion judge instead combined the appeals of both applications and heard them together, given the overlap in issues and an interrelation among the final and interlocutory aspects. In granting the second motion, the motion judge said the appeal might have merit, and the delay was neither overly long nor prejudicial. The motion judge directed Domenic to perfect his appeal within a specific time. In allowing the third motion, the motion judge explained that the interests of justice supported a stay, which could save costs and avoid inconvenience. The motion judge acknowledged serious issues in the combined appeals. Last Sept. 2, in Rosso v. Rosso, 2026 ONCA 626, Justice Paciocco and two other justices of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the trial judge’s order denying the application to enforce the alleged agreement. The appeal court saw no palpable, overriding, or other reviewable error in the trial judge’s de