Limitations in real estate agent’s opportunity is repudiation of contract

Fatima VieiraCommercial Contracts, Contract Disputes, Contract Termination0 Comments

Fatima Vieira B.A., M.A., LL.B.

In Barresi and 6491243 Canada Inc. v. Jones Lang Lasalle Real Estate Services, 2019 ONCA 884  the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the test for repudiating a contract.

Jones Lang Lasalle (“Lasalle”) was a real estate investment management company. Ryan Barresi (“Barresi”) was a real estate broker. Barresi and Lasalle entered into an agreement whereby Barresi was to be the Ottawa Practice Lead for investment property transactions. One year after entering into the contract, Lasalle advised Barresi that he could only pursue transactions in Ottawa up to a $10 million ceiling, even though the agreement imposed no such ceiling and transactions over $10 million would be exclusively available to another party, National Retail Investment Group (“NRIG”), which would involve Barresi only as Lasalle saw fit. The trial judge found that these two limitations undermined Barresi’s reason for entering into the contract with Lasalle, which was to undertake higher value transactions in Ottawa. The trial judge held that therefore, Lasalle had repudiated the contract. The trial judge also found that Barresi accepted the anticipatory repudiation of the agreement, which resulted in the automatic forgiveness of a $225,000 loan under a promissory note that formed part of the agreement. However, the trial judge dismissed Barresi’s claim for damages for negligent misrepresentation in inducing Barresi to join Lasalle because she found that any such representations were true when made. It was the later-imposed dollar limit that repudiated the agreement.

The Court of Appeal denied the appeal of Lasalle and affirmed that the trial judge correctly applied the test for contractual repudiation. Contractual repudiation occurs by words or conduct indicating an intention not to be bound by the contract. A contractual breach is a repudiation of the contract if it is a beach of a contractual condition or of some other sufficiently important term of the contract. In this case, Lasalle had repudiated the agreement by imposing the limitations on Barresi’s commercial activities, which fundamentally undercut Barresi’s basis for entering into the agreement, which was to undertake higher-value transactions in Ottawa.


Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).

About the Author
Fatima Vieira

Fatima Vieira

Fatima has appeared at all levels of Ontario courts in broad areas of litigation including condominium disputes, construction defect claims, insurance coverage applications, occupiers’ liability, personal injury and product liability claims. Fatima has achieved positive results for clients in court and at tribunals as well as in out of court agreements. Bio | Contact

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *