Timothy P. Bates

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment finding that coverage under a homeowner's policy was not excluded by a 'trade, profession or occupation' clause.

The insured was performing casual handyman activities when a fire broke out.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's interpretation of the policy or reliance on findings from the underlying tort action that the activities were personal and fell within the grant of coverage.

The purchaser of a home discovered structural defects and toxic mould after closing.

She sued the vendors, who had built the home themselves, for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, failure to disclose defects, and negligent construction.

The trial judge found the vendors liable for the cost of demolition and reconstruction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the findings of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and failure to disclose, finding no evidence of knowledge or reliance.

However, the Court upheld liability for negligent construction, as the vendors owed a duty of care to subsequent purchasers and the defects rendered the house dangerous.

Damages were reduced to the cost of repairing the dangerous defects rather than demolition.