40:
439:, holds that it "cannot be assumed that damages for breach of contract for the purchase and sale of real estate will be an inadequate remedy in all cases," and specific performance will be available only where money cannot compensate fully for the loss, because of some “peculiar and special value” of the land to the plaintiff.
450:
believed that the trial judge was correct in finding in fact that the Board had not proved that
Southcott had an opportunity to mitigate, which was sufficient to dispose of the appeal. She would have reversed the Court of Appeal's ruling and restored the original verdict. She saw no basis on which to
402:
The fundamental basis is thus compensation for pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach; but this first principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part
499:
Although
Southcott had admitted at trial that it made no attempts to purchase a comparable property, one can argue that a complete failure to make any efforts to mitigate is tantamount to that type of admission. Either way, damages for breach of contract continue to be the only remedy that the buyer
461:
Plaintiffs can never be certain that an action for specific performance will succeed, particularly as this is an equitable, discretionary remedy. Demanding that losses be mitigated unless success in obtaining specific performance is assured would deter valid claims for specific performance and hold
465:
It can be fairly argued that
Southcott did not act unreasonably in pursuing specific performance of the contract. Though the common law presumption of the uniqueness of real property no longer holds, a claim for specific performance may still be reasonable if a property has unique characteristics
488:
However, the decision (although seen to be well-based in legal theory) does not reflect the commercial reality of real estate development, where lenders are normally reluctant to advance funds to a company with limited assets that is embroiled in litigation, even when backed by a large corporate
674:
410:
Southcott had argued that, as a single-purpose company, it was impecunious and unable to mitigate without significant capital investment of the parent company or without the corporate mandate to do so. In addition, it would be reasonably foreseeable to those contracting with a single-purpose
510:
In the event of termination of a contract for the purchase of land, a purchaser should carefully consider its capacity to both mitigate and complete the initial transaction before proceeding with a claim for specific performance. Steps should be taken at an early stage in order to prove the
484:
Developers normally structure as single-purpose subsidiaries so that, if a market correction reduces land values, the parent company can pull the plug on the subsidiary and avoid liability for damages for not completing a purchase. If the purchaser had backed out, and the land had declined
506:
is significant because it confirms that a claim for specific performance will not insulate a plaintiff from the duty to mitigate. It is also noteworthy because the majority as well as the dissent seem to accept by implication that impecuniosity is a defence to a failure to
421:
In the absence of actual evidence of impecuniosity, finding that losses cannot be reasonably avoided simply because it is a single-purpose corporation within a larger group of companies, would give an unfair advantage to those conducting business through single-purpose
425:
As a separate legal entity, Southcott was required to mitigate by making diligent efforts to find a substitute property, because those who choose the benefits of incorporation must bear the corresponding burdens, including the duty to mitigate its
278:
At trial, Southcott stated it never had any intention to mitigate its loss and had not tried, that it had no assets other than the deposit from
Ballantry Inc for the deposit, and it was never going to purchase any other land.
496:
appears to have significantly restricted the opportunity to pursue specific performance in relation to commercial transactions, it did not conclusively restrict specific performance to residential transactions.
485:
substantially in value, the seller would have been unable to recover any damages beyond the deposit. Therefore, it is arguably fair that
Southcott failed to recover damages when the shoe was on the other foot.
417:
The claims relating to specific performance and damages were premised upon resources that were not tied up as a result of the breach alleged, which in this case did not affect
Southcott’s ability to obtain
317:
I find that these subsequent purchases were collateral, independent transactions that did not arise out of the consequences of the breach. In all the circumstances, I do not consider these transactions as
1330:
1152:
297:
had the Board used its best efforts, the severance would likely have been granted, and the transaction would have been completed by the closing date; therefore, the Board’s breach caused
Southcott’s loss;
840:
859:
1440:
878:
933:
1201:
1009:
313:
He rejected the Board's submission that
Southcott had mitigated damages through several purchases subsequent to the breach of the agreement, declaring:
259:
created just for purchasing and developing the land. The deal was conditional upon
Southcott paying a 10% deposit, and the Toronto School Board getting
1094:
379:
In a 6-1 ruling, the appeal was dismissed with costs. As it was therefore unnecessary to consider the cross-appeal, it was dismissed without costs.
1342:
1499:
1110:
244:
1080:
511:
uniqueness of the property in question. It can also be argued that such steps should be considered prior to the acquisition of the property.
336:
the trial judge did not err in finding that the Board's breach was the cause of the failure to obtain a severance by the closing date, but
1514:
1509:
1306:
1244:
955:
1504:
288:
150:
99:
361:
Southcott, while not appealing the trial judge’s refusal to award specific performance, maintained its losses were not avoidable.
411:
corporation that such an entity would have finite resources and a confined corporate mandate. This was held to be insufficient:
17:
1454:
1230:
1194:
1002:
1426:
893:
1268:
451:
conclude that
Southcott acted unreasonably in maintaining its suit for specific performance instead of mitigating its loss:
364:
On cross-appeal, the Board questioned whether the Court of Appeal was correct in law in dismissing its argument relating to
1398:
1256:
1218:
225:
1187:
995:
645:
458:
The act of filing a claim for specific performance is inconsistent with the act of acquiring a substitute property.
1469:
407:
The principles have since been refined in further cases at the Court, as well as at the Federal Court of Appeal.
275:
for the land, which meant severance was not granted in time. Southcott sued for specific performance or damages.
95:
1124:
918:
1170:
736:
268:
1356:
387:
355:
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal the decision were granted by the Supreme Court of Canada in November 2011:
323:
202:
158:
45:
973:
879:"Southcott Estates Case – The Death Knell for Specific Performance in Commercial Real Estate Transactions?"
661:
1384:
300:
specific performance was not an appropriate remedy as the land did not have the quality of uniqueness; but
256:
229:
87:
339:
he did err in law in finding that the Board had not shown that Southcott could have mitigated its losses,
551:
327:
910:
675:
British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd
455:
It had a “fair, real, and substantial justification” for claiming specific performance of the contract.
860:"A Doctrine of Mitigation in the Supreme Court of Canada: A Triumph of Theory over Commercial Reality"
469:
Whether it could have obtained financing to buy a different property is at the very least speculative.
39:
1318:
1294:
1159:
863:
248:
215:
198:
1412:
1465:
447:
146:
123:
956:"Purchasing Property for Development or Investment? What to do if there is a Breach of Contract"
1346:
1066:
1141:
1370:
1040:
272:
260:
219:
154:
1052:
1026:
365:
349:
134:
532:
representing the loss of a 60 percent chance to make profits in the amount of $ 3,225,827
1416:
1388:
1360:
1272:
1128:
342:
however, Southcott failed to make out a case for either specific performance or damages.
1480:
1402:
1282:
1084:
1030:
206:
142:
1070:
1056:
390:
began by summarizing the principles for mitigation previously adopted by the Court in
1493:
61:
1430:
1374:
395:
1444:
1234:
1114:
1100:
255:. Southcott Estates Inc was a subsidiary of Ballantry Homes Inc, a developer, and
218:
in the context of commercial land transactions (together with the related duty of
565:
940:
186:
Fish and Rothstein JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
138:
130:
987:
478:
The decision has raised significant debate on many of the issues it discussed:
1179:
1137:
173:
Karakatsanis J, joined by LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Rothstein, and Cromwell JJ
271:
before a certain date. However, the Committee refused without reviewing a
252:
658:
Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sea Oil & General Corporation et al.
304:
264:
392:
Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sea Oil & General Corporation
1154:
Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
642:
Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
92:
Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
18:
Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
1183:
991:
934:"Supreme Court clarifies requirements of the duty to mitigate"
843:
Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board
194:
Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board
33:
Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board
403:
of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps.
913:
Southcott Estates v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
921:, National Civil Litigation Section Newsletter. July 2013.
466:
such that a substitute property is not readily available.
841:"Quashing specific performance and piercing the veil in
84:
Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic School Board
251:
of a contract to sell it 4.78 acres (1.93 ha) of
751:(1824), 1 Sim. & St. 607, 57 E.R. 239, at p. 240
892:Mark S. Thompson; Mitch Dermer (13 December 2012).
177:
169:
164:
114:
106:
78:
70:
60:
53:
32:
90:, 104 OR (3d) 784 (3 May 2010), setting aside
894:"The End of the Line for Specific Performance?"
400:
315:
739: at par. 21, 2 SCR 415 (20 June 1996)
563:Part of the Ballantry Group of Companies, see
1195:
1003:
98:, 78 R.P.R. (4th) 285 (30 January 2009),
8:
209:, with significant impact in the areas of:
1202:
1188:
1180:
1010:
996:
988:
1096:Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd
201:, 2 SCR 675, is a landmark case of the
1343:Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council
544:
525:
1111:Dunlop Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Co Ltd
905:
903:
245:Toronto Catholic District School Board
29:
1081:Workers Trust v Dojap Investments Ltd
462:plaintiffs to an impossible standard.
307:, which were assessed at $ 1,935,500.
7:
932:Jenna Anne de Jong (November 2012).
1441:VTB Capital plc v Nutritek Int Corp
1307:Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v IRC
1245:Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd
961:. Weir Foulds LLP, Property Update.
552:SCC Case Information - Docket 33778
352:were awarded in the amount of $ 1.
972:Michael B. Morgan (1 April 2013).
954:Jonathan D. Born (November 2012).
25:
858:Geoff R. Hall (25 October 2012).
664:, 1 SCR 633 (3 October 1978)
289:Ontario Superior Court of Justice
110:Appeal and cross‑appeal dismissed
1231:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
839:Peter S. Spiro (25 March 2014).
38:
1455:Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc
877:John Mullen (23 January 2013).
243:Southcott Estates Inc sued the
1427:Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd
82:APPEAL and CROSS‑APPEAL from
1:
1500:Supreme Court of Canada cases
1399:Trustor AB v Smallbone (No 2)
398:'s observation was endorsed:
1257:Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne
1018:Performance and breach cases
27:Supreme Court of Canada case
1331:DHN Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC
1269:Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd
1210:Corporate personality cases
866:, Canadian Appeals Monitor.
226:piercing the corporate veil
1531:
1515:Canadian property case law
1510:Canadian contract case law
435:, when read together with
322:The Board appealed to the
303:Southcott was entitled to
1505:2012 in Canadian case law
1477:
1463:
1451:
1437:
1423:
1409:
1395:
1381:
1367:
1353:
1339:
1327:
1315:
1303:
1291:
1279:
1265:
1253:
1241:
1227:
1219:Case of Sutton's Hospital
1215:
1167:
1149:
1135:
1121:
1107:
1091:
1077:
1063:
1049:
1037:
1023:
566:"Ballantry Homes website"
185:
119:
100:Superior Court of Justice
37:
1125:Murray v Leisureplay plc
974:"Don't get too specific"
919:Canadian Bar Association
881:. Keyser Mason Ball LLP.
733:Semelhago v. Paramadevan
437:Semelhago v. Paramadevan
1357:Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd
1171:Remedies in English law
648: (18 November 2010)
554:Supreme Court of Canada
324:Ontario Court of Appeal
291:, Spiegel J held that:
269:Committee of Adjustment
203:Supreme Court of Canada
159:Andromache Karakatsanis
66:2012 SCC 51, 2 SCR 675
46:Supreme Court of Canada
1385:Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby
405:
320:
257:special purpose entity
896:. Singleton Urquhart.
102:(Ontario, Canada)
1319:Wallersteiner v Moir
1295:Tunstall v Steigmann
678:, AC 673, at p. 689
375:At the Supreme Court
249:specific enforcement
216:specific performance
56:Judgment: 2012-10-17
54:Hearing: 2012-03-20
1413:Chandler v Cape plc
1472:arts 1(2)(d) and 4
1466:Rome II Regulation
596:ONSC, par. 144–146
587:ONSC, par. 128–133
147:Marshall Rothstein
124:Beverley McLachlin
1487:
1486:
1177:
1176:
1144:) Sch 2(1)(d)-(e)
1067:Bolton v Mahadeva
911:"Case comment on
864:McCarthy TĂ©trault
749:Adderley v. Dixon
646:2010 CanLII 67504
578:ONSC, par. 93–116
190:
189:
16:(Redirected from
1522:
1371:Lubbe v Cape Plc
1222:(1612) 77 ER 960
1204:
1197:
1190:
1181:
1155:
1097:
1041:Sumpter v Hedges
1012:
1005:
998:
989:
978:
977:
969:
963:
962:
960:
951:
945:
944:
938:
929:
923:
922:
907:
898:
897:
889:
883:
882:
874:
868:
867:
855:
849:
848:
836:
830:
827:
821:
818:
812:
806:
800:
797:
791:
788:
782:
779:
773:
767:
761:
758:
752:
746:
740:
730:
724:
721:
715:
712:
706:
703:
697:
694:
688:
685:
679:
671:
665:
655:
649:
639:
633:
630:
624:
623:ONCA, par. 24–27
621:
615:
614:ONCA, par. 11–14
612:
606:
603:
597:
594:
588:
585:
579:
576:
570:
569:
561:
555:
549:
533:
530:
383:Majority opinion
283:The courts below
273:development plan
263:permission from
155:Michael Moldaver
128:Puisne Justices:
115:Court membership
96:2009 CanLII 3567
42:
30:
21:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1483:
1473:
1459:
1447:
1433:
1419:
1405:
1391:
1377:
1363:
1349:
1335:
1323:
1311:
1299:
1287:
1275:
1261:
1249:
1237:
1223:
1211:
1208:
1178:
1173:
1163:
1153:
1145:
1131:
1117:
1103:
1095:
1087:
1073:
1059:
1053:Hoenig v Isaacs
1045:
1033:
1027:Cutter v Powell
1019:
1016:
986:
981:
971:
970:
966:
958:
953:
952:
948:
936:
931:
930:
926:
909:
908:
901:
891:
890:
886:
876:
875:
871:
857:
856:
852:
838:
837:
833:
828:
824:
819:
815:
807:
803:
798:
794:
789:
785:
780:
776:
772:, at pp. 667-68
768:
764:
759:
755:
747:
743:
737:1996 CanLII 209
731:
727:
722:
718:
713:
709:
704:
700:
695:
691:
687:SCC, par. 24–25
686:
682:
672:
668:
656:
652:
640:
636:
631:
627:
622:
618:
613:
609:
604:
600:
595:
591:
586:
582:
577:
573:
564:
562:
558:
550:
546:
542:
537:
536:
531:
527:
522:
476:
445:
385:
377:
350:nominal damages
285:
241:
205:in the area of
151:Thomas Cromwell
135:Marie Deschamps
126:
55:
49:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1528:
1526:
1518:
1517:
1512:
1507:
1502:
1492:
1491:
1485:
1484:
1481:UK company law
1478:
1475:
1474:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1424:
1421:
1420:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1396:
1393:
1392:
1389:EWHC 1560 (Ch)
1382:
1379:
1378:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1340:
1337:
1336:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1316:
1313:
1312:
1304:
1301:
1300:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1283:Jones v Lipman
1280:
1277:
1276:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1216:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1206:
1199:
1192:
1184:
1175:
1174:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1015:
1014:
1007:
1000:
992:
985:
984:External links
982:
980:
979:
964:
946:
924:
899:
884:
869:
850:
847:. thecourt.ca.
831:
822:
813:
801:
792:
783:
774:
762:
753:
741:
725:
716:
707:
698:
689:
680:
666:
662:1978 CanLII 16
650:
634:
625:
616:
607:
605:ONSC, par. 143
598:
589:
580:
571:
556:
543:
541:
538:
535:
534:
524:
523:
521:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
512:
508:
501:
500:should expect.
497:
490:
486:
475:
472:
471:
470:
467:
463:
459:
456:
444:
441:
430:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
388:Karakatsanis J
384:
381:
376:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
362:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
337:
311:
310:
309:
308:
301:
298:
284:
281:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:single purpose
223:
207:commercial law
188:
187:
183:
182:
179:
175:
174:
171:
167:
166:
162:
161:
143:Rosalie Abella
121:Chief Justice:
117:
116:
112:
111:
108:
104:
103:
80:
76:
75:
72:
68:
67:
64:
58:
57:
51:
50:
43:
35:
34:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1527:
1516:
1513:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1495:
1482:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1462:
1457:
1456:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1436:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1408:
1404:
1403:EWHC 703 (Ch)
1401:
1400:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1352:
1348:
1345:
1344:
1338:
1333:
1332:
1326:
1321:
1320:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1290:
1285:
1284:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1264:
1259:
1258:
1252:
1247:
1246:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1232:
1226:
1221:
1220:
1214:
1205:
1200:
1198:
1193:
1191:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1172:
1166:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1120:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1076:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1048:
1043:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1022:
1013:
1008:
1006:
1001:
999:
994:
993:
990:
983:
975:
968:
965:
957:
950:
947:
942:
935:
928:
925:
920:
916:
914:
906:
904:
900:
895:
888:
885:
880:
873:
870:
865:
861:
854:
851:
846:
844:
835:
832:
826:
823:
817:
814:
810:
805:
802:
796:
793:
787:
784:
778:
775:
771:
766:
763:
757:
754:
750:
745:
742:
738:
734:
729:
726:
720:
717:
711:
708:
702:
699:
693:
690:
684:
681:
677:
676:
670:
667:
663:
659:
654:
651:
647:
643:
638:
635:
632:ONCA, par. 30
629:
626:
620:
617:
611:
608:
602:
599:
593:
590:
584:
581:
575:
572:
567:
560:
557:
553:
548:
545:
539:
529:
526:
519:
513:
509:
505:
502:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
473:
468:
464:
460:
457:
454:
453:
452:
449:
442:
440:
438:
434:
424:
422:corporations.
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
408:
404:
399:
397:
393:
389:
382:
380:
374:
367:
363:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
353:
351:
348:As a result,
341:
338:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
329:
325:
319:
314:
306:
302:
299:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
290:
282:
280:
276:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
238:
231:
227:
224:
221:
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:Reasons given
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
129:
125:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:2010 ONCA 310
85:
81:
79:Prior history
77:
73:
69:
65:
63:
59:
52:
48:
47:
41:
36:
31:
19:
1453:
1439:
1425:
1417:EWCA Civ 525
1411:
1397:
1383:
1369:
1361:EWCA Civ 243
1355:
1341:
1329:
1317:
1305:
1293:
1281:
1267:
1255:
1243:
1229:
1217:
1162:, 2 SCR 675
1151:
1142:SI 1999/2083
1129:EWCA Civ 963
1123:
1109:
1093:
1079:
1065:
1051:
1039:
1031:EWHC KB J 13
1025:
967:
949:
927:
912:
887:
872:
853:
842:
834:
829:SCC, par. 96
825:
820:SCC, par. 95
816:
811:, at par. 22
808:
804:
799:SCC, par. 94
795:
790:SCC, par. 93
786:
781:SCC, par. 92
777:
769:
765:
760:SCC, par. 65
756:
748:
744:
732:
728:
723:SCC, par. 30
719:
714:SCC, par. 29
710:
705:SCC, par. 27
701:
696:SCC, par. 26
692:
683:
673:
669:
657:
653:
641:
637:
628:
619:
610:
601:
592:
583:
574:
559:
547:
528:
503:
493:
477:
448:McLachlin CJ
446:
436:
432:
431:
409:
406:
401:
396:Lord Haldane
391:
386:
378:
354:
347:
321:
316:
312:
286:
277:
242:
232:subsidiaries
193:
192:
191:
181:McLachlin CJ
127:
120:
91:
83:
44:
1160:2012 SCC 51
976:. Building.
941:Norton Rose
330:held that:
318:mitigatory.
199:2012 SCC 51
139:Morris Fish
131:Louis LeBel
1494:Categories
1310:1 WLR 1214
1138:UTCCR 1999
1071:EWCA Civ 5
1057:EWCA Civ 6
540:References
239:Background
220:mitigation
71:Docket No.
1334:1 WLR 852
1322:1 WLR 991
1286:1 WLR 832
809:Semelhago
507:mitigate.
504:Southcott
494:Southcott
366:causation
328:Sharpe JA
261:severance
62:Citations
1470:864/2007
1468:(EC) No
1298:2 QB 593
1044:1 QB 673
418:capital.
326:, where
170:Majority
1458:UKSC 20
1431:UKSC 34
1375:UKHL 41
1273:UKPC 33
1158:,
770:Asamera
735:,
660:,
644:,
443:Dissent
433:Asamera
426:losses.
305:damages
287:At the
265:Toronto
178:Dissent
94:,
86:,
1445:UKSC 5
1347:UKHL 5
1260:Ch 935
1248:AC 619
1235:UKHL 1
1115:UKHL 1
1101:UKPC 5
1085:UKPC 7
492:While
489:group.
474:Impact
394:where
222:), and
107:Ruling
74:33778
959:(PDF)
937:(PDF)
520:Notes
1479:see
1169:see
253:land
247:for
228:for
267:'s
1496::
939:.
917:.
902:^
862:.
197:,
157:,
153:,
149:,
145:,
141:,
137:,
133:,
1203:e
1196:t
1189:v
1140:(
1011:e
1004:t
997:v
943:.
915:"
845:"
568:.
368:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
