“Even if I had found that Domenic had proven the existence of an oral agreement for the sale of Bruno’s interest in the Property, that agreement would still, in my view, have been unenforceable.
Oral agreements for the purchase and sale of land are presumptively unenforceable under section 4 of the Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.19. That provision, rooted in the need to protect against fraudulent oral claims in respect of land, states that no action for an interest in land is enforceable “unless the agreement upon which the action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or some person thereunto lawfully authorized by the party.”
As discussed above, the Agreement is not written. Nor is there any memorandum or note in respect of it. In the result, the Agreement is an oral agreement and is presumptively unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
An oral agreement may fall outside the operation of the Statute of Frauds, and hence be enforceable, where the equitable doctrine of part performance applies (Xynos v. Xynos, 2023 ONSC 830; Hill v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 1997 CanLII 401 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 69). The doctrine of part performance “allows the court to enforce an oral agreement in cases where it is unconscionable to apply the Statute of Frauds to render a contract unenforceable” (Xynos, at para. 107).
There are two requirements for the doctrine of part performance to apply (Xynos, at para. 108; 2730453 Ont. Inc. v. 2380673 Ont. Inc., 2022 ONSC 6660, at para. 119; Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada and Constantineau, 1954 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1954] S.C.R. 725, at pp. 732-734). There must be some acts of part performance that are “unequivocally referable in their own nature to some dealing with the land,” such that the acts indicate the existence of the alleged contract. There must also be detrimental reliance.”