This case reaffirms the old and well-established law that permits people to get out of contracts they signed while intoxicated (lack of consent), but the defence failed in this case involving a purchaser who failed to close a real estate deal, and wanted to resile from the contract on the basis of his alleged intoxication when the agreement of purchase and sale was signed. The court said the following:
“Neither party provided the court with any jurisprudence on the legal effect of intoxication on the formation of a binding contract. It would appear, however, that for at least 100 years, the law in this province has been that a contract entered into by an intoxicated person may be set aside for lack of consent if the person was so intoxicated that he or she was incapable of understanding what he or she was doing and if the other party was aware of the intoxication. See Bawlf Grain Co. v. Ross (1917), 1917 CanLII 51 (SCC), 55 S.C.R. 232. See also Williams v. Condon, [2007] O.J. No. 1683 (S.C.J.) at para. 21.
It is remarkable that … (the purchaser)…would drink himself to the point of incapacity knowing that a real estate agent was soon to come by his home to complete an offer on a $2 million property. Indeed, I find it so remarkable as to stretch credulity. (The purchaser)… , in any event, provided no evidence of what he drank, or in what quantities between 6:00 p.m., when he started drinking, and 8:00 p.m. when the realtor arrived. He offered no particulars of the effect of the alcohol on him, apart from the self-serving statement that he was “inebriated”. The record appears clear that, at the very least, he understood that he was negotiating back and forth to conclude an agreement to purchase …(the)… property. He was, in other words, capable of understanding what he was going (sic, likely “doing”).”
Personally, I believe the defendant was also in jeopardy for losing this case due to the second part of the test which the court did not really address: the need for the “other party” to be “aware of the intoxication.” In other words, even if the defendant put forth evidence about his intoxication (ie: what was consumed, when it was consumed, how much was consumed, etc), I would think that if he was drinking in private from the vendor (which is most typically what happens during real estate negotiations), then the intoxication defence ought to have equally failed (unless the vendor somehow got wind that the purchaser was drunk, such as perhaps some messaging from the purchaser’s agent). The law is, to my mind, really geared at not allowing a party to take advantage of someone that they know is making decisions while intoxicated: for example, liquoring them up before striking the deal.
Sansalone v. Qiu, 2022 ONSC 286