Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B, s. 4, Sch. [as am.]
Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4
Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, ss. 1, 4
Rules and regulations referred to
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 1
Authorities referred to
Driedger, Elmer, Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983)
APPEAL from the judgments of C.A. Gilmore J.,  O.J. No.
305, 2016 ONSC 371 (S.C.J.) and  O.J. No. 292, 2016 ONSC
370 (S.C.J.) allowing applications for the return of deposits.
Symon Zucker and Nancy Tourgis, for appellant.
Michael W. Carlson, for respondents.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
 G.J. EPSTEIN J.A.: — This appeal involves the interpreta-
tion of provisions in two statutes — the Condominium Act, 1998,
S.O. 1998, c. 19 (the “Act”) and the Real Property Limitations
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15 (the “RPLA”). This interpretive exercise
arises out of two separate applications that were heard together.
The applications concern the obligation of the appellant, Talon
International Inc., to return deposits that the respondents —
Young Sook Yim and Paul Chung-Kyu Kim (collectively, “Ms.
Yim”)1 in one application and Adrian B. Harvey and Harvey
Legacy Holdings Ltd. (collectively, “Mr. Harvey”) in the other —
paid toward the purchase of condominium units in Talon’s
development known as Trump Tower.
 Several years after entering into their respective agreements of purchase and sale (an “APS”) with Talon, Ms. Yim and
Mr. Harvey each provided written notices to Talon, advising of
their intention to “terminate” the transaction. Both stated their
basis for doing so as being, in part, what they viewed as material
changes to the revised disclosure statement Talon had provided
to them. Both requested the return of their deposits. The
respondents take the position that their communications constituted valid notices to rescind their respective APS under s. 74(6)
and (7) of the Act. Because Talon had not challenged, within
the time the Act allows, either Ms. Yim’s or Mr. Harvey’s right to
1 Ms. Yim’s husband, Mr. Kim, was added as an applicant subsequent to
Ms. Yim’s commencing her application. For ease of reference, I will refer to
the applicants jointly as Ms. Yim.