The “cornerstone” of the plantiffs’ claims, Justice Rouleau said, was a document that was presented to each of them outlining the “estimated return on investment”.
Both Mr Singh and Ms Lee said they relied heavily on the estimates provided to them in making their individual decisions to purchase their respective properties.
But “as it turned out, the estimates bore no relation to financial reality. The motions judge found as a fact that the estimates were ‘deceptive documents’ and ‘replete with misrepresentations of commission, of omission, and of half-truth’,”Justice Rouleau said.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the investors, ordering that the sale of the unit must be rescinded for Singh and damages must be paid to Lee for “negligent misrepresentation”.