A Kingston-area home builder must pay $440,200 after an Ontario court found it had illegally cancelled two pre-construction home sales in Napanee and resold the lots for a profit.
Justice Laurie Lacelle ruled in Superior Court on Monday, Feb. 2, 2026, that James Selkirk Custom Homes Ltd., also known as Selkirk Lifestyle Homes (Selkirk), relied on a contract clause allowing termination if a subdivision wasn’t registered on time — but the clause violated Ontario’s consumer protection rules for new-home sales. The court sided with the buyers, 13405176 Canada Inc., who argued that the mandatory Tarion Addendum permits only specific early termination conditions, and that subdivision registration is not one of them.
The dispute stems from the 2020 purchase of two pre-construction home lots in Napanee’s Millhouse Yards subdivision, both on Gateway Place. Lot 54 sold for $364,900, with a tentative closing originally set for December 2021, later extended to May 2022. Lot 56 sold for $374,900, with closing pushed to April 2022. Both agreements became firm after conditions were waived, but Selkirk later refused to close, citing alleged “unresponsiveness” by the buyers.
According to Lacelle’s decision, each agreement included Schedule “I,” which would void the contracts if the Plan of Subdivision was not registered by December 31, 2021. The plaintiffs, represented by Gregory Weedon, argued the clause was invalid because it conflicted with the Tarion Addendum, which limits early termination to a closed list of approvals from governmental authorities, not administrative registration.
The Tarion Addendum is a mandatory document in Ontario new-home contracts that outlines key dates, buyer protections, and the limited circumstances under which a builder may legally cancel a purchase.
Lacelle noted that the Council of the Town of Greater Napanee granted final approval of the subdivision plan on August 17, 2021, and Chief Building Official Michael Nobes confirmed all municipal requirements were complete. Only the administrative registration of the M-Plan remained.
An M-Plan, or deposited plan of subdivision, is the final, officially approved version of a subdivision plan filed with the Land Registry Office, which legally allows lots to be sold and registered. Selkirk did not complete this plan until May 2022 — well past the Schedule “I” deadline. Because Selkirk controlled this process, the plaintiffs argued the cancellations were illegal.
Without notifying the buyers, Selkirk resold Lot 54 for $530,000 and Lot 56 for $650,000, generating profits of $165,100 and $275,100 respectively. According to Lacelle, Selkirk refused to provide the resale agreements or answer questions about the timing of the sales, leaving the plaintiffs to rely on independent appraisals to establish market value.
Selkirk, represented by Lou Vadala, argued that the case should not be decided without a full trial. The builder said there were still questions about whether the buyers had done everything needed to close the deals and whether their actions might have contributed to the cancellations.
Selkirk also disputed how damages were calculated, saying the true value of the lots would need expert evidence and that witnesses — including Michael Nobes — should be questioned about the subdivision registration process. The company maintained that these unresolved issues meant the court could not fairly decide the case without hearing all the evidence in a trial.
Justice Lacelle found the case could be resolved without a full trial, focusing on whether Schedule “I” was valid. She concluded that it was inconsistent with the Tarion Addendum and unenforceable. By cancelling the agreements and reselling the lots for profit, Selkirk had breached its contracts.
The judge determined that the buyers’ losses should be calculated with reference to the market value of the lots on their scheduled closing dates. The lots had been resold for $530,000 (Lot 54) and $650,000 (Lot 56), showing that the buyers lost a total of $440,200. Because Selkirk refused to provide the resale documents, the court assumed the buyers’ figures were correct and awarded damages to put them in the position they would have been in if the sales had gone ahead as promised.
The case underscores how some of Ontario’s new-home purchase rules protect buyers, particularly through the Tarion Addendum, which limits when a builder can cancel a contract. It also highlights the role of local oversight: the Town Council and Chief Building Official Nobes confirmed that all municipal approvals were in place well before Selkirk tried to cancel the agreements, reinforcing that the builder’s actions were improper.
Awarding $440,200 in damages based on the resale prices of the lots, the court ostensibly placed the buyers in the position they would have been if the sales had gone ahead as promised.
By Michelle Dorey Forestell, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Original Published on Mar 18, 2026 at 08:39
Recent Comments