MacMaster v. Stephen

MacMaster v. Stephen

The adjudicator found no sufficient evidence that the vendor or the person who completed the PCDS knew of the concealed nursery and window defects and dismissed those claims under caveat emptor and lack of proven knowledge; however, the PCDS answer denying foundation leakage was found to be a misstatement given evidence of prior basement floods, rot, tar, and corroborating hearsay, and the vendor was held liable for remediation damages of $2,500 plus costs.

Citation
2006 NSSM 32
Parties
Claimant: Craig MacMaster; Claimant: Joanne MacMaster; Defendant: Thomas Stephen
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Property Sale Dispute / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part and dismissed in part: liability found only for basement flooding remediation; claims as to nursery damage and window leakage dismissed.
Legal Topics
Property Condition Disclosure, Misrepresentation, Damages, Caveat Emptor
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Law Tort/negligence Civil Procedure Property Condition Disclosure Misrepresentation Damages Caveat Emptor

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig MacMaster

Claimant

Joanne MacMaster

Claimant

Thomas Stephen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Property Sale Dispute / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether answers on the property condition disclosure statement (PCDS) were inaccurate
  2. 2 Whether the vendor had knowledge of defects alleged by the purchasers
  3. 3 Whether the vendor is liable for basement flooding arising from alleged undisclosed foundation leakage

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator found no sufficient evidence that the vendor or the person who completed the PCDS knew of the concealed nursery and window defects and dismissed those claims under caveat emptor and lack of proven knowledge; however, the PCDS answer denying foundation leakage was found to be a misstatement given evidence of prior basement floods, rot, tar, and corroborating hearsay, and the vendor was held liable for remediation damages of $2,500 plus costs.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part and dismissed in part: liability found only for basement flooding remediation; claims as to nursery damage and window leakage dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimants $2,500.00 for remediation of basement flooding
  • Defendant to pay Claimants costs of $178.75 for filing fees and law stamp