Brunning v. Cummings

Brunning v. Cummings

The PDS was incorporated into the contract; the defendants knowingly minimized and misrepresented the true extent of groundwater/ingress issues in the PDS and failed to disclose the July 9, 2016 event, constituting fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract; plaintiffs entitled to damages for remediation, proven special damages and non-pecuniary loss totalling $168,220.83.

Citation
2020 BCSC 31
Parties
Plaintiffs: Cheri Colleen Brunning and Joel Donald Brunning; Defendants: Robert Stewart Cummings and Benigna Valdez Cummings
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Real Property Dispute (purchase of Residential Property) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs: claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract allowed.
Legal Topics
Property Disclosure Statement, Vendor Disclosure Obligations, Latent Defects, Misrepresentation, Damages Assessment
Source Language
English
Real Property Contract Law Tort Law Fraud Negligence Property Disclosure Statement Vendor Disclosure Obligations Latent Defects +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheri Colleen Brunning and Joel Donald Brunning

Plaintiffs

Robert Stewart Cummings and Benigna Valdez Cummings

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Real Property Dispute (purchase of Residential Property) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Property Disclosure Statement (PDS) incorporated into the contract?
  2. 2 What legal effect did the PDS have on the parties' rights and duties?
  3. 3 Did the defendants commit fraudulent misrepresentation?

Ratio Decidendi

The PDS was incorporated into the contract; the defendants knowingly minimized and misrepresented the true extent of groundwater/ingress issues in the PDS and failed to disclose the July 9, 2016 event, constituting fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract; plaintiffs entitled to damages for remediation, proven special damages and non-pecuniary loss totalling $168,220.83.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs: claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract allowed.

Orders

  • Awarded damages to plaintiffs in the total amount of $168,220.83
  • Remediation costs assessed at $140,000.00