The appellant seller appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent buyers $25,000 in damages for misrepresentation.
The seller had answered 'no' to a question about flooding on a Seller Property Information Statement, despite knowing of a severe water accumulation problem in the backyard.
The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the misrepresentation was fraudulent or negligent, that the defect was latent, and that the 'entire agreement' clause did not exclude liability because the SPIS was incorporated into the agreement.
The appeal was dismissed.
