Whelton Hiutin LLP lawyer Dan McConville and articling student Reese Nemeth recently successfully represented the vendor in a dispute over a deposit following the failed sale of a commercial building. The case turned on contractual interpretation and whether vacant possession was a term of the agreement. Justice Iacobucci found that the vendor’s interpretation was correct, and the deposit was properly forfeit to the vendor given the purchaser’s refusal to complete the transaction without vacant possession. The decision in Ruzgar v. Real Estate Council of Ontario et al, 2025 ONSC 6793, is available here.