Waisman v. Adams

Waisman v. Adams

Adjudicator found on balance of probabilities that defendants lacked actual knowledge of Kitec piping and its risks, there was insufficient evidence to infer knowledge, and legal liability for nondisclosure requires actual knowledge (not mere negligence in preparing the PDS); accordingly the claim was dismissed.

Citation
2019 NSSM 53
Parties
Claimant: David M. Waisman; Defendant: Gary Stephen Adams; Defendant: Jacquelin Marie Adams
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Sale of Residential Property / Decision (adjudicator)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Property Disclosure Statement, Latent Defects, Caveat Emptor, Vendor Knowledge and Disclosure, Product Defect (kitec Piping)
Source Language
English
Real Property Contract Negligence Property Disclosure Statement Latent Defects Caveat Emptor Vendor Knowledge and Disclosure Product Defect (kitec Piping)

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David M. Waisman

Claimant

Gary Stephen Adams

Defendant

Jacquelin Marie Adams

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Sale of Residential Property / Decision (adjudicator)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants knew or ought to have known of the presence of Kitec piping
  2. 2 Whether failure to disclose Kitec piping on the Property Disclosure Statement imposes liability for replacement costs
  3. 3 Whether Kitec piping constitutes a latent defect that falls within exceptions to caveat emptor

Ratio Decidendi

Adjudicator found on balance of probabilities that defendants lacked actual knowledge of Kitec piping and its risks, there was insufficient evidence to infer knowledge, and legal liability for nondisclosure requires actual knowledge (not mere negligence in preparing the PDS); accordingly the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed without costs to either party.