Barbour v. MacDonald

Barbour v. MacDonald

The defendants made a negligent misrepresentation in the PCDS by overstating the repair status and the existence/transferability of a watertight warranty; they knew or ought to have known the repair was provisional and exterior drainage remained a problem; the claimants relied on the misrepresentation and are entitled to damages equal to the reasonable cost of remedial work ($13,738.85) plus prejudgment interest and costs.

Citation
2011 NSSM 55
Parties
Claimant: Laura Barbour; Claimant: Charlene Robichaud; Defendant: Gary MacDonald; Defendant: Rebecca Jane Leblanc
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Property Misrepresentation / Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim allowed; judgment for Claimants
Legal Topics
Property Condition Disclosure Statement, Negligent Misrepresentation, Damages, Prejudgment Interest, Costs
Source Language
English
Real Property Tort Law Contract/consumer Protection Property Condition Disclosure Statement Negligent Misrepresentation Damages Prejudgment Interest Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laura Barbour

Claimant

Charlene Robichaud

Claimant

Gary MacDonald

Defendant

Rebecca Jane Leblanc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Property Misrepresentation / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements in the Property Condition Disclosure Statement (PCDS) constituted a misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the defendants knew or ought to have known the PCDS statements were incorrect
  3. 3 Whether a warranty existed or was transferable and its effect

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants made a negligent misrepresentation in the PCDS by overstating the repair status and the existence/transferability of a watertight warranty; they knew or ought to have known the repair was provisional and exterior drainage remained a problem; the claimants relied on the misrepresentation and are entitled to damages equal to the reasonable cost of remedial work ($13,738.85) plus prejudgment interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judgment for Claimants

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimants $13,738.85 for repair costs
  • Defendants to pay prejudgment interest of $909.40 (4% from Feb 1, 2010 to Sep 27, 2011)