The Plaintiffs applied for Summary Judgment and Summary Dismissal of the Defendants’ Counterclaim (the “Application”). There were four grounds for making the Application.

First, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendants $630,000 in contemplation of entering into an agreement for the purchase of shares in a daycare business (the “Shares”) but were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of sale. Second, the Plaintiffs’ payment was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations on the part of the individual Defendant. Third, the Defendants had been unjustly enriched. Fourth, if there was a share purchase agreement for the daycare business (the “Agreement”), the Defendants repudiated the Agreement.

The Plaintiffs were granted Summary Judgment for the return of their payments and the Defendants’ Counterclaim was dismissed.

Applying the principles form Weir-Jones, Birkett J. held that the Pleadings, Affidavit evidence, and Questioning transcripts supported the findings that the Defendants were unjustly enriched, and the Plaintiffs’ expectation of ownership transfer was unmet. Birkett J. further held that the Defendants’ failure to disclose material facts to the Plaintiffs constituted misrepresentation, justifying rescission of the Agreement. The Defendants’ claim for estoppel by representation was rejected as they acted not solely based on the Plaintiffs’ representations, but for their own gain. It was further found that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the return of their purchase price and rent payments, with prejudgment interest and costs.