Latent Defects: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Tort Law Category:Small Claims ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gwvnz Gladu v Robineau, 2017 ONSC 37 (CanLII)]== [292] <b><u>The distinction between patent and la...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Tort Law]] | [[Category:Tort Law]] | ||
[[Category:Small Claims]] | [[Category:Small Claims]] | ||
[[Category:Real Estate]] | |||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/gwvnz Gladu v Robineau, 2017 ONSC 37 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/gwvnz Gladu v Robineau, 2017 ONSC 37 (CanLII)]== | ||
Revision as of 04:36, 18 March 2020
Gladu v Robineau, 2017 ONSC 37 (CanLII)
[292] The distinction between patent and latent defects is described in Halsbury’s Laws of England, at para. 51: Defects of quality may be either patent or latent. Patent defects are such as are discoverable by inspection and ordinary vigilance on the part of a purchaser, and latent defects are such as would not be revealed by any inquiry which a purchaser is in a position to make before entering into the contract for purchase.
[293] A home inspection is not intended to find latent defects. At para. 76 of Lyle v. Burdess, 2008 YKSM 5 (CanLII), Cozens Terr. Ct. J. agreed with the comments of Killeen J. in Kaufmann v. Gibson (2007), 59 R.P.R. (4th) 293 (Ont. S.C.), stating:
- In circumstances where there is no [Property Disclosure Statement] prepared, a prudent purchaser would be expected to contract for a more thorough home inspection if the buyer wished to avoid future costly surprises. Where a PDS has been prepared, however, the buyer should be able to rely on the truthfulness and accuracy of the representations in the PDS in deciding the extent to which a contractor will be instructed to conduct a home inspection.
