2013 NBCA 20, 2013 NBCA 20

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 149-12-CA STEPHANIE TEED and MICHAEL BLANEY APPELLANTS STEPHANIE TEED et MICHAEL BLANEY APPELANTS - and - - et - HARBOURFRONT RESIDENCES AT THREE SISTERS INC. RESPONDENT HARBOURFRONT RESIDENCES AT THREE SISTERS INC. INTIMÉE Teed and Blaney v. Harbourfront Residences at Three Sisters Inc., 2013 NBCA 20 Teed et Blaney c.

Harbourfront Residences at Three Sisters Inc., 2013 NBCA 20 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Deschênes The Honourable Justice Robertson CORAM : L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Deschênes L’honorable juge Robertson Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: October 30, 2012 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 30 octobre 2012 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o.

Appeal heard: February 13, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 13 février 2013 Judgment rendered: February 13, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 13 février 2013

Counsel at hearing: For the appellants: Timothy M. Collins For the respondent: Rodney J. Gillis, Q.C. Avocats à l’audience : Pour les appelants : Timothy M. Collins Pour l’intimée : Rodney J. Gillis, c.r. THE COURT The appeal is dismissed with costs. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT (Orally) [ 1 ] For greater certainty, the order which the application judge granted was not an order for specific performance, nor an order declaring that the parties had entered into a binding agreement of purchase and sale, nor an order declaring that any binding agreement had been breached.

The application judge merely determined that the agreement which the appellants and the respondent had signed was with respect to unit #205 of the condominium complex, which unit was located on the same level as the “owners’ plaza” and not on another level of the development. [ 2 ] The application was brought under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court (Vendors and Purchasers). In our view, there is simply no basis for interference.

There is nothing in the appellants’ affidavit evidence which undermines or brings into question the clear wording of the agreement of purchase and sale and the attached plan which discloses the location of unit #205. Moreover, the refusal of the judge to convert the application to an action was not infected with error. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500. ___________________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A. ____________________________________ ALEXANDRE DESCHÊNES, J.A.

______________________________________ J.T. ROBERTSON, J.A.