What Zoleta v. Singh (2023 ONSC 5898) teaches agents about client coaching, anticipatory breach, and the seventy-two hours before closing.
By the Deeded Editorial Team. Last updated April 20, 2026.
TL;DR
- A Kitchener buyer tried to renegotiate a $1.15M purchase one week before closing. His lawyer wrote that the buyer "requires" a $355,000 price reduction.
- The Ontario Superior Court ruled the word "require" was a demand, not a request, and amounted to anticipatory breach of the agreement.
- The sellers kept the $50,000 deposit, resold the home for about $350,000 less, and won $345,121.98 in damages plus interest and costs.
- For agents, the lesson is blunt. How your client asks for relief before closing can be the difference between a negotiated abatement and a six-figure judgment.
The deal
In February 2022, Donna and Ronald Zoleta agreed to sell their Kitchener home for $1,150,000.
The buyer, Lovesikander Singh, put down a $50,000 deposit. The agreement of purchase and sale had no conditions. No financing out. No inspection clause. No status certificate review. Firm deal, with closing set for June 30, 2022.
The Zoletas weren't just selling. They'd bought a new home in Calgary and were counting on the Kitchener proceeds to close it.
Then the market turned.
The letter that changed everything
On June 23, 2022, one week before closing, Singh's lawyer sent a short letter to the sellers' lawyer. The appraisal, he said, had come in $355,000 below the purchase price. Then he wrote the sentence that would define the case:
"Our clients require the abatement for the same."
The sellers said no.
Their lawyer wrote back the next day making it clear that failure to close would be a breach, and they'd pursue damages. On the same day, the Zoletas quietly relisted their home, at the same price, and texted the buyer's agent so nobody was blindsided.
On June 30, the Zoletas showed up at their lawyer's office with their closing documents. Singh didn't. When the sellers offered an extension in exchange for an additional $50,000 non-refundable deposit, Singh refused. Then he pivoted and took the position that the agreement was "null and void" because the sellers had relisted the property.
What the court actually said
The Zoletas resold the property for roughly $350,000 less than Singh had agreed to pay. They sued for their losses and brought a summary judgment motion.
The court's reasoning came down to one word.
"Require."
In legal terms, the question was whether Singh's June 23 letter amounted to anticipatory repudiation. That's a legal way of asking: did the buyer, by his words or conduct, clearly signal he wouldn't honour the deal?
The motion judge said yes. "Require" isn't a request.
It's a demand. Singh wasn't inviting a conversation about an abatement. He was telling the sellers he wouldn't close unless they knocked $355,000 off the price. That gave the Zoletas the right to treat the deal as broken and act accordingly.
Singh's counter-argument (that the relisting itself was repudiation by the sellers) didn't land either. The court looked at the full picture. The sellers told the buyer's agent about the relisting. They kept saying they wanted to close. They didn't sign any new sale agreement before June 30. They actually attended at their lawyer's office ready to close. None of that pointed to sellers who'd walked away from the deal.
Final damages: $345,121.98
- $330,225.00 for the lost sale value (net of commission)
- $9,962.00 in carrying costs
- $4,934.98 to extend the sellers' Calgary closing
Plus interest. Plus costs. All triggered by one word in a pre-closing letter. We've written extensively about why so many real estate deals are falling apart right now, and this case is a textbook example of how one sentence can tip a shaky deal over the edge.
What this means for agents and brokers
If you've been in the business for a few years, you've lived some version of this.
The market moves between offer and close, the buyer gets cold feet, the appraisal comes in light, and everyone scrambles. Zoleta v. Singh should change how you handle those moments.
Firm deals are firm. When a buyer waives conditions or never includes them, they own the price. Appraisal shortfalls are a buyer problem, not a seller problem. If the bank won't lend enough, the buyer has to find the money somewhere else.
Language matters, and it's fragile. A request keeps the door open. A demand can slam it shut. If your buyer is asking for anything (an abatement, an extension, a credit), how they frame it in writing can be the difference between a negotiated outcome and a lawsuit.
Relisting early isn't automatic repudiation by the seller. If your seller is nervous about a shaky buyer, getting back on MLS can actually protect them, as long as they keep saying they want to close, don't sign a competing agreement before the original closing date, and act in good faith. The court in Zoleta was comfortable with the sellers' approach precisely because they were transparent about everything.
The paper trail wins cases. The Zoletas had texts, letters, closing attendance, and a written offer to extend all documented. If you're advising a seller whose buyer starts to wobble, help them build that trail in real time. Our piece on what to do when a buyer won't close walks sellers through the first forty-eight hours after a missed closing.
The client conversation
Two conversations fall out of this case.
First, the nervous buyer. When a buyer client calls you two weeks before closing, panicked about appraisal or financing, the worst thing they can do is fire off a strongly worded letter on their own. Get them to their lawyer. Walk them through the downside math. In a soft market, walking away can cost more than closing and immediately reselling themselves. (We cover that math in what happens to my deposit if the deal falls through.)
Second, the seller whose buyer has started sending difficult letters. Don't panic. Read the letter carefully, then call your client's lawyer. If the buyer's language is firm ("require," "demand," "insist on," "will not close unless"), the seller may have more options than they think. An hour with a real estate litigator is worth it.
Deals fall apart. What separates the clients who recover from a shaky close from the ones who end up writing cheques like the one in Zoleta v. Singh is usually the quality of advice they got in the last seventy-two hours before the deadline. That's where you come in.
Frequently asked questions
What is anticipatory breach in Ontario real estate?
Anticipatory breach (also called anticipatory repudiation) happens when one party to a contract signals, before the performance date, that they won't honour their obligations. In real estate, it usually shows up as a buyer demanding price reductions, changes to material terms, or announcing they won't close. If the language crosses from request into demand, the innocent party can treat the contract as ended and sue for damages.
Can a seller relist a property before the closing date if the buyer looks shaky?
Yes, but carefully. Zoleta v. Singh confirms a seller can relist without automatically repudiating the deal, provided they continue to communicate a willingness to close, don't sign a competing agreement before the original closing date, and act in good faith. Transparency helps. The Zoletas texted the buyer's agent about the relisting, which was cited by the court.
What damages can a seller claim when a buyer fails to close in Ontario?
Sellers can typically claim the difference between the agreed purchase price and the eventual resale price (net of commission), carrying costs while the property sits unsold (taxes, utilities, insurance, mortgage interest), and related losses caused by the breach, such as interest or costs on a replacement purchase. The Zoletas recovered $345,121.98 across those categories.
Does an appraisal coming in low let a buyer renegotiate?
Not if the agreement has no financing condition. A low appraisal is the buyer's financing problem, not the seller's price problem. If the APS is firm, the buyer is legally on the hook for the full price. Renegotiation is possible, but only by request. The moment a buyer turns it into a demand, they risk anticipatory breach.
What's the practical takeaway for agents?
Coach clients before they put anything in writing in the last week before closing. Words like "require," "demand," and "insist on" are legally explosive. A conversation with a real estate lawyer before a letter goes out can save a client hundreds of thousands.
Primary source: Zoleta v. Singh and RE/MAX Twin City Realty, 2023 ONSC 5898 (CanLII).
This article is general information, not legal advice. For advice on a specific transaction, talk to a licensed Ontario real estate lawyer.
Last updated April 20, 2026.
Unlock Your Seamless Closing Experience
Your Journey to a Worry-Free Closing Starts Here!
