In my view, it would not be unjust to grant specific performance in the circumstances. Given the nature and function of the property to the plaintiffs, a substitute is not readily available (see Semelhago v. Paramadevan, 1996 CanLII 209 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415 at para. 22). The evidence is clear that the plaintiffs were ready to close by August 8, 2012 at the latest, and the defendants were in breach as they were not ready to close on August 3 themselves, nor had they reinstated the time of the essence provision.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.