Latent Defects: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
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.
