Dupere v. Evans

Dupere v. Evans

Adjudicator's factual findings that there was no second spill and that sellers did not know of it were erroneous; the seller had a duty to disclose material post-agreement information about further environmental testing and monitoring; nondisclosure of that material information justified rescission and return of the deposit to the purchasers.

Citation
2006 NSSC 4
Parties
Appellants: Arthur Dupere and Yvelle Dupere; Respondents: Gregory Evans and Joey Evans
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Appeal Real Property / Environmental Contamination / Appeal From Small Claims Court Adjudicator Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission, State of Repair, Non Disclosure, Sale of Land, Environmental Site Assessment, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Law Tort Misrepresentation Environmental Law Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation +6 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur Dupere and Yvelle Dupere

Appellants

Gregory Evans and Joey Evans

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Appeal Real Property / Environmental Contamination / Appeal From Small Claims Court Adjudicator Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents negligently or fraudulently misrepresented the number and scope of oil spills on the property
  2. 2 Whether placement of test wells and discovery of contamination after the agreement amounted to a fundamental change in the state of repair entitling rescission
  3. 3 Whether sellers had a duty to disclose post-agreement environmental testing and investigation

Ratio Decidendi

Adjudicator's factual findings that there was no second spill and that sellers did not know of it were erroneous; the seller had a duty to disclose material post-agreement information about further environmental testing and monitoring; nondisclosure of that material information justified rescission and return of the deposit to the purchasers.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Return deposit of $5000 to the appellants
  • Appellants awarded costs in accordance with the Small Claims Court Act and Regulations