British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Zhang v. Soong, 2012 BCSC 758 (CanLII):
In Li v. Au, 2006 BCSC 671, Loo J. refused the remedy of specific performance. There was objective evidence of other comparable homes, including two properties on the same street, each of which the plaintiff had rejected for subjective reasons. Loo J. wrote that there did not have to be identical homes readily available, and she concluded that the home was not unique.
In Sihota v. Soo, 2010 BCSC 886, Bruce J. awarded specific performance. The property was a residential lot in a particular area of Vancouver, close to a school, the plaintiff’s parents’ home, and other amenities. The defendants led evidence of 22 other properties which they argued were comparable. Bruce J. wrote that the evidence “is sufficient to satisfy me that the property is unique in the sense that a comparable property that would meet all of the plaintiff’s requirements is not readily available.” In addition, damages were not an adequate remedy because one of the defendants did not have the ability to pay damages.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.