This is my personal experience, not legal advice.
In 2021, I purchased a pre-construction condominium. It is now 2026, and occupancy is scheduled for September 2027. Based on comparable units in today’s market, I estimate that the property has lost approximately $300,000 in value. If I close the transaction, I will effectively be paying about $300,000 more than the unit is currently worth.
I have already paid a 20% deposit of $137,000. If I refuse to close, the builder may be entitled to keep my deposit, resell the unit and pursue me for any remaining damages. Based on my rough calculation using today’s estimated market value, my additional exposure could be approximately $163,000, plus the builder’s legal fees and other costs. The actual amount would, of course, depend on the eventual resale price and the circumstances at that time.
While researching my options, I came across DiCenzo (Linden Park) Holdings Inc. v. Sadeghyar, 2026 ONSC 1566. My understanding is that the purchaser was able to walk away from the transaction and recover the deposit because the builder had failed to provide the Residential Condominium Buyers’ Guide required under section 72 of Ontario’s Condominium Act.
For a moment, I thought I might be in the same position.
Then, tonight, I found an email that complicated everything. It looked almost identical to the routine pre-construction marketing emails I had received. The main difference was its subject line: “Action Required: Disclosure Statement.” The email had no attachments. It contained only a link inviting me to explore.
I do not remember clicking that link, and I have no record of viewing or downloading anything through it. At the time, I likely assumed it was another marketing email. I had no knowledge of either the Disclosure Statement or the Buyers’ Guide. I also do not presently know what documents, if any, were accessible through that link.
There is another unusual detail which resembles the DiCenzo case. On December 1, 2021, I signed an acknowledgment stating that I had received both the Disclosure Statement and the Residential Condominium Buyers’ Guide. However, the email containing the possible link to those documents was not sent until December 4, 2021—three days after I signed the acknowledgment.
That sequence may weaken the evidentiary value of the acknowledgment, but it does not necessarily resolve the issue in my favour. The builder may still present electronic records showing what was sent, what the link contained or whether the documents were otherwise made available to me.
My potential argument that the builder never delivered the documents is therefore no longer as straightforward as I initially believed. At the same time, I still never knowingly opened, downloaded or read either document because it may start my countdown for my 10-day cooling period if they truly contain the documents, and I will not be able to argue it in court. Whether an unopened hyperlink constitutes legal delivery, and what effect should be given to an acknowledgment signed before the apparent delivery email, remain unanswered questions.
I consulted a real estate lawyer, who recommended that I speak with the litigation lawyer who represented the successful purchaser in DiCenzo. I contacted that lawyer’s office, but the quoted fee for a preliminary legal opinion was $2,500 to $3,500 plus HST.
For me, that is an extremely high price for an initial opinion, and at the same time, I may not even have a case due to the newly discovered email.
For now, the legal issue remains unresolved.
Update 1 on September 15:
The more digging I do, the worse it seems.
First, under section 6 of the Electronic Commerce Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 17, a legal requirement to provide information or a document in writing may be satisfied electronically, provided that the electronic document is accessible for subsequent reference and capable of being retained.
On top of that, the APS contains a boilerplate clause that appears to address this issue directly:
“Pursuant to subsection 3(1) of the Electronic Commerce Act of Ontario, as amended (or any successor or similar legislation) (the ‘EC Act’): (i) the Purchaser acknowledges and agrees to use and accept any information and/or document to be provided by the Vendor and/or its solicitors in respect of this transaction in an electronic form if, when and in the form provided by the Vendor and/or its solicitors including, without limitation, accepting and providing electronic signatures, delivery by electronic mail and/or by the Vendor making information or documentation available to the Purchaser or its solicitor for access or download from a website.”
I did find a lawyer who wrote in his Article:
“Electronic delivery can satisfy the statutory requirement, but the burden is on the builder to prove that delivery actually occurred — not merely that they sent it. Courts look at whether there is a timestamped confirmation of receipt, a signed acknowledgement, or a read receipt. A bare email in the builder’s outbox without any confirmation that the buyer received it may be open to challenge.”
I believe, however, I am no longer convinced that there is a legal requirement for the builder to produce a read receipt, timestamped confirmation of receipt, or some other form of affirmative acknowledgement in order to establish delivery.
My concern is that, given the wording of both the Electronic Commerce Act and the APS, proof that the email containing the link was properly sent to the agreed email address may potentially be sufficient, even if there is no evidence that I actually opened the email or accessed the link.
I will speak with Mr. Khan on September 16, but at this point, I am no longer confident that I have a viable case. However, I am genuinely glad that I did so much research before meeting with him. I now realize that my earlier belief that I had never received these documents could have caused significant problems if I had relied on that assumption without investigating the issue myself.
I also truly appreciate Redditor “Rude-Camera-7546” for their comment on my Reddit post. They clearly explained the issue of legal delivery of documents, helped me organize my thoughts, and ultimately prompted me to look more closely at the relevant provisions in my APS.