A Manitoba couple won an award totalling just over $1 million after a corporate buyer failed to complete a $3.5-million property purchase, saying it could not obtain overland flood insurance.
In Frechette et al. v. 15019745 Canada Inc., Justice Toews granted summary judgment to Marc and Sharon Frechette on May 20, 2026. The amounts ordered total $1,005,960.45, including the release of a $200,000 deposit already held in trust. Accrued interest on that deposit and court costs were additional; the ruling did not establish that the money had been collected.
The buyer, 15019745 Canada Inc., paid the initial deposit but missed the original September 2023 closing. The parties extended possession to October 19 in exchange for a further $225,000 deposit. The company neither paid that additional amount nor completed the purchase. The reasons distinguish unavailable overland flood coverage from the property being otherwise insurable.
Misrepresentation defence fails on the evidence
The company argued that disputes about discussions during a property tour, including flood-protection works and the availability of insurance, required a trial. It also said it had been unable to obtain an affidavit from its own real estate agent and needed his evidence.
The Frechettes denied making misleading representations. They said the property disclosure statement did not require the explanation sought by the buyer, and relied on evidence from their son, who acted as their agent, that he had told the buyer’s agent flood insurance was unavailable.
Toews found that the buyer had not produced evidence establishing fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. Its representative acknowledged that he had never spoken with the sellers and had not discussed overland flood insurance with their son. The judge found that the company relied on its own impression of the property and an inspection, rather than representations by the Frechettes.
The judge also found no untrue or misleading statements in the sellers’ disclosure statement. The absence of an affidavit from the buyer’s agent did not justify postponing resolution: the company had to present evidence showing a genuine issue for trial, and the rules permitted a properly sourced affidavit based on information and belief. Its counterclaim against the sellers was dismissed.
Deposits, lost profit and fixed expenses
The award included both the $200,000 deposit in trust and the unpaid $225,000 deposit. Toews reasoned that a defaulting buyer should not improve its position by failing to pay an agreed deposit. The sellers’ entitlement to those amounts did not depend on whether they might later sell for a higher price.
The judge also awarded $500,100 for lost profit. The property had been relisted at a lower asking price but remained unsold on the evidence before the court. Toews acknowledged concern that recovering both deposits and anticipated lost profit could put the sellers in a better position than completion of the original deal, but concluded that Manitoba case law supported the recovery.
Property taxes of $40,860.45 and a combined $40,000 for storage and maintenance completed the principal award. Those amounts were fixed, with no order for continuing expenses. Marc Frechette’s separate lost-income claim was dismissed because the evidence did not support it.
The ruling did not dispose of every dispute arising from the transaction. The buyer could continue its claims against Nicholas Frechette and Kilkenny Real Estate Ltd., operating as Sutton Group–Kilkenny Real Estate, in a separate action. Those third parties were not parties to the sellers’ summary-judgment motion.
Source: Frechette et al. v. 15019745 Canada Inc., 2026 MBKB 69.
