Record $2.385 Million Damages Award in Luxury Residential Breach of Agreement Case

Greg Weedon of Weedon Law Secures Landmark Summary Judgment for Seller

Citation: Menon v. Simpson, 2025 (CanLii)

In December 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision that has reshaped the landscape of high value residential real estate litigation.

Justice Paul Sweeny awarded a seller $2,385,000 in damages following a failed luxury waterfront transaction in Port Credit. The award included $1,835,000 in resale losses and $550,000 in carrying costs, together with interest and approximately $21,000 in court costs. An online review of Ontario residential damages awards reveals no comparable judgment exceeding $1 million. This award now stands as a record in a single family residential case.

The Transaction

In May 2023, the buyer agreed to purchase a luxury five bedroom lakefront home on Cumberland Drive for $8,385,000. The property featured a 50 by 247 foot lot and title extending approximately 300 feet into Lake Ontario.

The buyer failed to close on the scheduled completion date. The parties agreed to two extensions. The transaction ultimately collapsed.

The seller promptly relisted the property in a softening market. After active marketing efforts targeting high end buyers, the property resold for $6,550,000. The difference between the contract price and resale price totaled $1,835,000.

The Legal Issue: Mitigation

Weedon Law acted for the seller and commenced an action for breach of contract. Greg Weedon brought a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to determine the matter based on documentary evidence where no genuine issue required a trial.

The central issue focused on mitigation. When a buyer breaches an agreement of purchase and sale, the court seeks to place the seller in the position he would have occupied had the contract closed. This principle, rooted in long standing common law, protects the seller’s loss of the benefit of the bargain.

If a buyer alleges failure to mitigate, then the buyer must prove two elements. First, the seller failed to take reasonable steps to reduce losses. Second, mitigation was realistically possible.

The buyer did not dispute the seller’s $550,000 in carrying costs. The buyer argued that the seller should have resold for at least $7 million, potentially supported by a $2 million vendor take back mortgage. The buyer produced no appraisal, no expert report, and no market analysis to support that position.

The seller, our client, by contrast, presented clear evidence. The property was promptly relisted. The listing price was adjusted as market conditions shifted. Leasing options were explored. Marketing targeted the luxury segment.

Justice Sweeny concluded that the buyer failed to meet the evidentiary burden. The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment.

Why This Case Matters

This decision sends a direct message to purchasers in the luxury market.

If market values decline after signing, then exposure does not stop at the deposit. Damages can extend into seven figures where resale losses and carrying costs mount.

For sellers, the ruling confirms an important principle. The law requires reasonable mitigation, not perfect mitigation. A seller who documents pricing adjustments, marketing efforts, and resale strategy can meet that standard and recover substantial losses.

Conclusion

The Menon v. Simpson decision stands as a landmark residential damages award in Ontario. At $2,385,000, it establishes a new benchmark for breach of agreement cases involving high value homes.

For buyers, the case illustrates the magnitude of financial risk in walking away from a signed agreement. For sellers, it confirms that decisive action and clear documentation can support full recovery when a deal collapses.

For advice on high value real estate disputes, summary judgment strategy, or mitigation claims, contact the litigation team at Weedon Law.