Cooper v. MacLellan

Cooper v. MacLellan

The Defendant, despite evidence he knew of historic stormwater intrusion and repeatedly contacted Halifax Water, answered PDS questions in the negative; that omission amounted to negligent or intentional misrepresentation. Damages are assessed in tort as the likely overpayment reflective of the property's true value absent the misrepresentation; the court awards a speculative reduction of purchase price by 5% ($15,000) plus modest costs, denying large expert fee recovery because it was primarily commissioned for remediation advice and was disproportionate to its evidentiary value.

Citation
2022 NSSM 54
Parties
Claimant: Randy D. Cooper; Claimant: Sheena L. Cooper; Defendant: Brian Joseph MacLellan
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Real Property / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Claimants
Legal Topics
Property Disclosure Statement, Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Damages, Costs, Caveat Emptor
Source Language
English
Real Property Contract Tort Property Disclosure Statement Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Damages Costs +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Randy D. Cooper

Claimant

Sheena L. Cooper

Claimant

Brian Joseph MacLellan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Real Property / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor's Property Disclosure Statement (PDS) misled the purchasers
  2. 2 Whether the misrepresentation was negligent or intentional
  3. 3 Proper measure of damages for negligent misrepresentation in a real estate PDS context

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant, despite evidence he knew of historic stormwater intrusion and repeatedly contacted Halifax Water, answered PDS questions in the negative; that omission amounted to negligent or intentional misrepresentation. Damages are assessed in tort as the likely overpayment reflective of the property's true value absent the misrepresentation; the court awards a speculative reduction of purchase price by 5% ($15,000) plus modest costs, denying large expert fee recovery because it was primarily commissioned for remediation advice and was disproportionate to its evidentiary value.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimants

Orders

  • Defendant shall pay Claimants $15,000.00 in damages
  • Defendant shall pay Claimants costs of $728.78