Duplessis v. Harrison, [2001] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 21 (TD)

• Judge: Glennie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: February 23, 2001
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: [2001] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 21 (TD)

Duplessis v. Harrison, [2001] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 21 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) TBEd. MR.016

Renvoi temp.: [2001] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) TBEd. MR.016

Bernard Duplessis and Rosanna Duplessis (plaintiffs) v. Richard Harrison and Donna Lou Harrison (defendants)

(S/C/732/98)

Indexed As: Duplessis v. Harrison

Répertorié: Duplessis v. Harrison

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Glennie, J.

February 23, 2001.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiffs purchased a 25 year old four-unit apartment building from the de­fen­dants, a husband and wife. After closing the plaintiffs discovered that the building had a major wood rot problem. The plaintiffs sued the defendants.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the male defendant was aware of the wide spread rot problem when the building was sold. The wood rot problem constituted a substantial latent defect of which the defendants had knowledge and did not disclose. The defen­dants were therefore responsible for dam­ages.

Practice - Topic 1305

Pleadings - General principles - Necessity of - The plaintiffs purchased a 25 year old four-unit apartment building from the defendants - After closing, the plaintiffs discovered a major wood rot problem - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages - During trial, the court raised the issue of the effect of an exclusionary clause contained in the agreement of pur­chase and sale - The plaintiffs argued that since the defendants did not plead regard­ing the effect of the clause, they could not rely on it - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, agreed with the plaintiffs' argument holding that the defendants could not rely on the clause - See paragraphs 78 to 97.

Sale of Land - Topic 6217

Completion - Seller's duties - Latent de­fects - The plaintiffs purchased a 25 year old four-unit apartment building from the defendants - After closing, the plaintiffs discovered a major wood rot problem - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages - During trial, the court raised the issue of the effect of an exclusionary clause contained in the agreement of pur­chase and sale - The plaintiffs argued that since the defendants did not plead regard­ing the effect of the clause, they could not rely on it - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, agreed with the plaintiffs' argument holding that the defendants could not rely on the clause - The court opined that, in any event, even if the defendants were able to rely upon the exclusionary clause, the failure to disclose substantial latent defects to a purchaser was not within the purview of such a clause - See paragraphs 78 to 97.

Sale of Land - Topic 6217

Completion - Seller's duties - Latent de­fects - The plaintiffs purchased a 25 year old four-unit apartment building from the defendants - After closing the plaintiffs discovered that the building had a major wood rot problem - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages - The New Bruns­wick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Divi­sion, held that the male defendant was aware of the wide spread rot problem when the building was sold - The wood rot problem constituted a substantial latent defect of which the defendants had knowl­edge and did not disclose, although they had a duty to do so - The defendants were therefore responsible for the plaintiffs' loss - The court allowed damages equal to the cost of repairs, less an allowance of 50% for betterment - See paragraphs 1 to 104.

Sale of Land - Topic 8631

Remedies of purchaser - For quality de­fects - Latent defects - [See both Sale of Land - Topic 6217 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 8772

Remedies of purchaser - Damages - Latent defects - [See second Sale of Land - Topic 6217 ].

Procédure - Cote 1305

Plaidoiries - Principes généraux - Obliga­tion de plaider - [Voir Practice - Topic 1305 ].

Vente de biens-fonds - Cote 6217

Clôture - Devoirs du vendeur - Vices cachés - [Voir Sale of Land - Topic 6217 ].

Vente de biens-fonds - Cote 8631

Recours de l'acheteur - Défectuosité - Vices cachés - [Voir Sale of Land - Topic 8631 ].

Vente de biens-fonds - Cote 8772

Recours de l'acheteur - Dommages-intérêts - Vices cachés - [Voir Sale of Land - Topic 8772 ].

Cases Noticed:

Domokos v. Phillips, [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 72].

Gronau v. Schlamp Investments (1974), 52 D.L.R.(3d) 631 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 76].

Ward et al. v. Cudmore et al. (1987), 75 N.B.R.(2d) 112; 188 A.P.R. 112 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].

McGrath v. MacLean (1979), 95 D.L.R.(3d) 144 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Fournier v. van der Laan et al. (1987), 187 N.B.R.(2d) 11; 478 A.P.R. 11 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].

Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick (1999), 235 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 235 R.N.-B.(2e) 1; 607 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

Boudreau v. Jacob (1997), 192 N.B.R.(2d) 256; 489 A.P.R. 256 (T.D.), affd. 204 N.B.R.(2d) 254; 520 A.P.R. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

J.B. v. Jacob - see Boudreau v. Jacob.

Couture v. Caisse Populaire de Bath­urst Ltée (1997), 185 N.B.R.(2d) 386; 472 A.P.R. 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

ADI Ltd. v. 052987 N.B. Inc. et al. (2000), 232 N.B.R.(2d) 47; 232 R.N.-B.(2e) 47; 598 A.P.R. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

McElree v. Brook, [1986] B.C.J. No. 2503, refd to. [para. 84].

Davies et al. v. Clarke et al. (1995), 106 Man.R.(2d) 288 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 85].

Unrau and Unrau v. Gay (1983), 61 N.S.R.(2d) 256; 133 A.P.R. 256 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 88].

France v. Stewart, [1998] O.J. No. 2021 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 89].

Evans v. Doody, [1996] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 121 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 90].

Thomas v. Blackwell, [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 269 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 93].

Hasper v. Shauer, [1922] 2 W.W.R. 212 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

McConnel v. Wright, [1903] 1 Ch. D. 546 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Hepting et al. v. Schaaf et al., [1964] S.C.R. 100, refd to. [para. 98].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 27.06(8) [para. 79].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Di Castri, Victor, The Law of Vendor and Purchaser (3rd Ed. 1988) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, p. 7-17, para. 235 [para. 82].

Counsel:

Timothy M. Hopkins, for the plaintiffs;

W.S. Reid Chedore, for the defendants.

This matter was heard before Glennie, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following decision on February 23, 2001.