Quote:
Originally Posted by AMG_G
|
Odd, the other case in Quebec was dismissed despite the owner not disclosing a suicide in the house.
http://canlii.ca/en/qc/qccq/doc/2006...6qccq1260.html
Quote:
[45] In such a case, it appears to us that it is up to buyers to ask specific questions reflecting the phobias, fears, or other subjective considerations that could, in their view, interfere with their full enjoyment of a building or even with their purchase of the home in the first place. Once such a question is asked, the seller’s obligation to make full disclosure is heightened, and the seller must not induce erroneous consent through silence or a failure to disclose an element that appears to be important to the buyer, at the risk of having the validity of the sale contested in cases where the other party would not have contracted or would have contracted on different terms had all the information been known (article 1401, C.C.Q.).
[46] The Court is of the opinion that the events and facts of the life of the residents of a residential property cannot normally be considered to be liable to significantly influence the consent of the adverse party, unless there have been questions asked about those events and facts.
[47] A death, suicide, or even a murder in a house cannot be considered to be something the seller is obliged to disclose to the buyer,[3] just as there is no obligation to disclose domestic violence, trespasses, births, marriages, baptisms, or other life events, whether happy or sad, that may have occurred there.
|
This was small claims court with the defendant seeking $7,000 in damages but couldn't really substantiate how they arrived at that value and why it would eliminate their fears of living in the house. Which does differ with the other case, at least that couple were saying they don't want the house and want their money back while these guys just wanted $7,000 for some reason.
Still, not a fan of the judgement in the Calgary Sun article. They received a refund for the house along with damages and kept the house? Something isn't adding up there at all.
In any case it's odd that there isn't a strict easy to find policy. It doesn't make sense that one verdict is saying that death and suicides don't need to be disclosed without being asked and a judge is awarding a couple a refund and damages for a buyer not disclosing a murder and suicide in the same province a couple years apart. Maybe the couple from the Sun article did ask and were lied to or something?