Latent Defects: Difference between revisions
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
::h. Deficient bridging of joists in basement, and | ::h. Deficient bridging of joists in basement, and | ||
::i. A window installed sideways. | ::i. A window installed sideways. | ||
16. The following issues are to be determined at trial: | |||
::i.) Did the defendants conceal patent defects in the property? | |||
::ii.) Were the defendants aware of latent defects in the property which they failed to disclose? | |||
::iii.) Did the defendants misrepresent the condition of the property prior to sale? | |||
::iv.) What duty was owed to the purchaser by the listing agent and did she breach it? This issue will require determination of whether the listing agent owes a different duty than the brokerage or the buyer’s agent. | |||
::v.) What damages did the plaintiff suffer? |
Revision as of 04:48, 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.
Robb-Sim v Solomes, 2013 CanLII 41925 (ON SCSM)
DEFECTS AND QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGE
14. At the trial the plaintiff and her home inspector described the following defects in the property:
- a. Heaving, warping and separating of the hardwood floors,
- b. Water leaking into the basement,
- c. Foundation cracks,
- d. Cracked ceramic tiles,
- e. Side door below level of driveway,
- f. Improper grading around house generally, and the window wells specifically,
- g. Lifting of flashing at peak of roof,
- h. Deficient bridging of joists in basement, and
- i. A window installed sideways.
16. The following issues are to be determined at trial:
- i.) Did the defendants conceal patent defects in the property?
- ii.) Were the defendants aware of latent defects in the property which they failed to disclose?
- iii.) Did the defendants misrepresent the condition of the property prior to sale?
- iv.) What duty was owed to the purchaser by the listing agent and did she breach it? This issue will require determination of whether the listing agent owes a different duty than the brokerage or the buyer’s agent.
- v.) What damages did the plaintiff suffer?