In the context of litigation related to a failed house sale, a selection of the Defendants applied, pursuant to Rule 7.2, for Summary Dismissal of the claim against them. The claim against the relevant Defendants was in regard to their role, as counsel to the seller, in registering certain instruments on title.

The Defendants argued that they acted on the instructions of the seller who, in the circumstances of this case, was acting as the agent of the buyers in dealing with the Land Titles Office. Therefore, per the Defendants, any liability was the seller’s alone.

The Court held that, even if the Defendants’ arguments were accepted, a relationship was conceivably created between the Defendants and the purchasers, with corresponding duties and obligations. The Court further observed that if there was no such relationship, as the Defendants argued, then they had misrepresented their position to the Land Titles Office when registering the instruments at issue.

Based on these findings, the Court was unable to conclude that the Plaintiffs’ claim had “no merit” as required for a successful Application for Summary Dismissal. The Court therefore dismissed the Application and granted Costs to the Plaintiffs.