A woman who bought two seat licences at the Air Canada Centre for just over $107,000 took the seller to court after finding out the seats were actually behind rink netting, and will get her money back after a court ruling.

Theresa Galle and her husband began the search for two seat licences for Toronto Maple Leafs and Raptors season tickets in the summer of 2017, according to the April 3 decision by a Superior Court judge. Seat licenses can be bought for a one-time fee, giving the licence-holder exclusive rights to buy season tickets for those particular seats.

The couple made the inquiries through their company, TMJ Hygiene Service Corp. (the applicant named in the lawsuit), and wanted to buy the licences for corporate use, to treat staff, suppliers and others, and also for personal use, the decision said.

Galle found an ad for the ticket licences posted on Kijiji.ca by the title holder, Daniel Seca, president of Aces Capital Inc. He advertised the spots — for the Raptors, Section 108, Row 20, Seats 17 and 18, and for the Leafs Section 110, Row 24, Seats 16 and 17 — for $95,000 plus tax.

But the transaction led the parties to a courtroom, not a sports venue, after Galle claimed that Seca misrepresented the seat location when selling her the Leafs seats, which are “partially obscured by netting and also provide a less advantageous view of the rink,” the decision says.

Galle declined to comment when reached through Ross Barristers, the law firm that represented her. Seca also declined to be interviewed.

As is the case in many stadiums, most of the seats in the ACC are held by season ticket-holders. For the Leafs, that number is 90 per cent, according to team owner MLSE. Additional tickets are held back for players’ families and staff.

Read more:

Everyone knows how tough it is to get Leafs tickets. Now we know exactly how tough

Opinion: Maple Leafs ticket prices would be easier to take if the atmosphere wasn’t so dull

Galle wanted to be sure that the seat location in Section 110 was closer to Section 109, near centre ice, and not the corner Section 111.

Seca told Galle via text message and in a meeting on July 25 that the seats were on the aisle closer to Section 109, the centre ice side of Section 110, the decision said.

The woman tried to check the seat location independently and was able to see a map of the ACC, “but she could not find a seat map that showed individual seat numbers, because Leafs tickets were not on sale to the public at that time,” according to the decision.

“She was concerned because the view from the seats on the aisle of Section 110 that is closer to Section 111 is partially obstructed by netting that blocks the hockey puck from hitting spectators attending Leaf games,” the decision said. It goes on to explain that Galle thought the seats on the aisle next to Section 109 “provided a significantly better view of the rink” because they were closer to centre ice.

Galle and Seca met the next day, July 26, to finalize the purchase. Again, Galle asked Seca to go over the location of the seats, and wrote out a statement on a season ticket “Bill History,” swearing that the Leafs seats “are closer to Section 109.”

Just over a month later, on Sept. 11, Seca received the Leafs tickets for the 2017-18 season and passed them on to Galle.

That’s when she was able to look at a more detailed ACC map, which had the Leafs seats closer to Section 111 and not Section 109. She contacted Seca “immediately” and asked for a refund.

They were not able to resolve the dispute over the seat licences.

But Galle’s company, TMJ Hygiene Service, claims that Seca agreed to a refund at first, “but, then, subsequently, (reneged on) … this agreement.”

“Seca maintains that he honestly believed that the tickets in question were closer to Section 109 as opposed to Section 111,” the decision said.

In his decision, Judge Patrick J. Monahan wrote that Seca accepts he misrepresented the seat location, but argued that this “was not material because the actual seat location was only 15 seats away from the location he represented.”

The licence title to the seats never changed hands because TMJ Hygiene Service refused to sign the transfer agreement, the decision said, but the parties did resolve the payment issues for the 2017-18 season tickets.

In contract law, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations are called torts (wrongs), where parties can claim damages for a loss inflicted on them. This case is centred on deciding another issue, the question of innocent misrepresentation, said Brian Langille, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“All you have to show is that … you entered the deal on the basis of what they told you, and you wouldn’t have entered it otherwise, so it’s a really important representation they made. If you can prove that, you can get your money back,” he explained.

Personal seat licences can run from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kijiji.ca listings posted this week ask for $125,000 for two seats in the 300s section, and $122,500 for two seats in the 100s section.

Correction - April 13, 2018: This article was edited from a previous version that misspelled the name of Judge Patrick J. Monahan. As well, the article misspelled the name of the company, Aces Capital Inc.