Recent LAT/HCRA Decision Relating to Purchase Agreement Cancellations - HCRA v. Briarwood (Angus) Ltd.

In a recent September, 2025 decision, Briarwood was successful in having the HCRA Discipline Committee dismiss 128 out of 142 counts of misconduct under Section 3 of the Code of Ethics and the remaining 14 were subsequently withdrawn by HCRA.

This decision was the culmination of a number of key losses on motions by Briarwood.  The first motion that HCRA lost was a result of the panel finding that HCRA had failed to make adequate disclosure of information in its files and ordering full disclosure of its files. On a subsequent motion, the HCRA’s expert witness was disqualified for having failed to have proper qualifications to provide evidence. And finally, on a third motion, 128 of 142 counts were dismissed as a result of a failure to adduce evidence for 128 purchasers of improper pressure to cancel their agreements or pay additional consideration. Only 6 purchasers gave evidence out of 142.

Subsequently, HCRA withdrew the remaining 14 counts.

Over the last few years, HCRA has been singularly focussed on builders who during the COVID-19 supply crisis, were forced to seek additional revenue from purchasers in order to address the rapid rise in costs that were unanticipated and allow projects to be completed. Many builders were unable to financially complete their projects or get financing without having the additional revenue.  Yes, there may have been some unscrupulous vendors who tried to strong-arm their purchasers into paying more money (or allowing the home to be resold at a higher price), but the vast majority of vendors who were forced to go back to their purchasers did so on the basis that without additional revenue, the project was no longer economic and purchasers would end up seeing the project cancelled or go into receivership, and potentially lose their deposit, if the deposits were already used in the project and exceed the warranty limit.

The Briarwood case is a prime example of a builder who was respectful in its dealings with purchasers and gave them the option to seek legal advice if they wished to continue with their purchase agreements. HCRA felt that a clear option to remain in the agreement was not given as per one of their internal advisories. Think about it. If the vendor is going to give purchasers the options to stay in their agreement and pay the additional funds or terminate and get their deposits back, there would not be sufficient revenue for the vendor to complete the project. Briarwood made the right decision to advise purchasers to seek legal counsel to determine what their legal rights were if they did not wish to either walk away from the deal and get their money back or pay extra and stay in the deal. And the Discipline Committee agreed.

The decision also highlights the lack of preparedness of the HCRA in putting evidence together and relying on their own advisories, as opposed to seeking actual evidence from purchasers of any real immoral or unfair pressure tactics. The mere fact that HCRA puts out an advisory does not make it law. It is no different than IT Bulletins of the CRA. Persuasive, but is not necessarily binding.

Sadly, these cases are anecdotal because under the current environment, prices are dropping and vendors are desperate to keep their purchasers in the deals at their original prices. No one wants purchasers to terminate any more. But the lesson to be learned from this particular case is that HCRA has to demonstrate a sensitivity when addressing market conditions and not only to protecting purchaser’s rights. It needs to acknowledge the economic realities that developers face in rising and falling markets and develop rules that are fair to both parties. HCRA was set up to regulate and license builders and protect purchasers from unscrupulous and unethical builders.  Its goals should also be to ensure that the industry remains healthy and have fair and practical rules and guidelines for consumers and builders alike.