August 19,2025
RED FM News Desk
A ruling that had ordered a developer to pay over $13 million in damages to pre-sale condo buyers for breach of contract has been overturned on appeal, with the higher court dismissing the case entirely.
More than 30 individuals who put deposits on condos at the 2015–2016 ALFA development sued Anderson Square Holdings Ltd., claiming the developer had breached their contracts. The developer had terminated the pre-sale contracts in July 2019, citing disputes with contractors and an inability to secure financing. The condos were later sold at higher prices under the name PRIMA, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision issued last year.
The original claim argued that the developer had no right to terminate the contracts at that time. The $13,093,900 damages awarded reflected the difference between what the pre-sale buyers had paid and the condos’ value when the buyers accepted the return of their deposits in August 2021, effectively “repudiating” their contracts, per the 2024 decision.
Anderson Square Holdings appealed, contending that the lower court misinterpreted key contract clauses and that it was entitled to terminate the agreements once it became clear construction would not finish by September 30, 2019. The three-judge appeal panel unanimously agreed.
Although the appeal court noted that the relevant clause was “inherently unclear and ambiguous” and “poorly worded,” the judges found it gave the developer the right to terminate the contracts without the pre-sale buyers’ written consent if completion by the specified date was impossible due to circumstances beyond the developer’s “reasonable control.”
The court rejected the buyers’ argument that the contracts remained binding without their written consent, saying such an interpretation would lead to commercially absurd results.
The ruling explained: “If there were a blameless delay, the contract would remain in effect for the duration of the delay unless otherwise agreed. This could leave purchasers’ investments indefinitely tied up while the developer completes construction.”
Concluding that the lower court had erred in interpreting the contract, the appeal was allowed and the case dismissed.
Loading ...
