Libero C. Paci

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in a real estate misrepresentation action arising from the purchase of a house, the court addressed the defendants’ request for costs.

The defendants sought more than $7,000 for the motion.

The court held that the amount claimed was disproportionate to the modest damages sought and the simplicity of the proceeding, and noted that the plaintiff had reasonably commenced the claim against both vendors and had resorted to summary judgment after waiting years for a trial date.

Costs were reduced and fixed at a lower amount.

The court also ordered that the costs be payable only at the conclusion of the trial due to fairness considerations arising from the plaintiff’s circumstances.

The purchaser of a residential property brought a motion for summary judgment alleging negligent misrepresentation based on statements in a Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS) that denied prior flooding, structural issues, and moisture problems.

Shortly after closing, significant basement leakage and structural defects were discovered.

The court reviewed jurisprudence regarding the legal effect of SPIS disclosures and the limits of the doctrine of caveat emptor once a vendor elects to provide such a statement.

Although the purchaser demonstrated a strong prima facie case, the court held that key factual disputes regarding the extent and cause of the leakage, the visibility of defects, and the appropriate scope of repairs required viva voce evidence.

The purchaser’s motion for summary judgment was dismissed, while the claim against one defendant was dismissed on consent because she did not sign the SPIS.

The appellant appealed a decision determining he had no ownership interest in a disputed parcel of land.

The appellant argued the application judge lacked jurisdiction to decide ownership, but the Court of Appeal noted the appellant's own Notice of Application sought a declaration of ownership.

The Court found ample evidence supporting the application judge's decision, as the appellant's title only conveyed part of Lot 4, and the survey he relied upon erroneously included part of Lot 1.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.