A man in North Bay who bought a house in the city, only to immediately discover it had major water infiltration issues, has been awarded $129,000 in compensation by an Ontario Superior Court justice. He also received an out-of-court settlement of $10,000 from the home inspector who signed off on the condition of the home before the sale. The man bought the house in January 2019 and took possession in May of that year. “When he arrived, he noticed that the electric fireplace in the rec room was running and set very high/hot,” the court decision said. Water seeped through the flooring On May 3, 2019, movers assisted with the new homeowner’s belongings, according to the decision. “They brought the piano to the basement, and when it was placed on the floor in the rec room, water ‘squished up’ through the flooring,” it says. “As the piano was moved through the rec room, water began to seep through the flooring wherever the piano rested.” The new homeowner was forced to fix the leaking foundation. Between May and November, repairs included removing the deck, excavating the north side of the residence, jacking the house, replacing the cement blocks along the northwest and northeast side of the home and demolishing the basement rec room and laundry room — including “the removal of drywall, vapour barrier, and insulation, leaving only the studs.” “Mould was located during the construction, necessitating the installation of a temporary exhaust hose to remove ‘bad air,’” the decision said. “These repairs and the fans/exhaust were loud and unrelenting, contributing to the plaintiff’s claims for loss of enjoyment, inconvenience and mental stress.” The total cost of the work was $119,595.75, of which $15,594.88 was covered by insurance. He was on the hook for the remainder. The contractor who completed the repairs testified he discovered a crack in the home’s foundation that “extended into the ground, and near the top, it was wide enough for his fingers to fit into.” “He further observed that the windows were pushed in significantly. He concluded this was due to the way the deck was constructed and attached to the house. As a result, the deck had to be entirely removed and rebuilt after the work was completed.” Denied all knowledge However, the previous owner of the home testified that the problems were all news to her. “The defendant maintains that she had no water infiltration in the basement during her ownership of the house,” the court decision said. “She denied knowing that the window in the basement was not plum/flush, and she denied ever removing large areas of drywall, any vapour barrier or insulation. She was unaware of any cracks in the foundation.” Her father, who described himself as an experienced handyman, testified that he did some relatively minor repairs after his daughter bought the home in 2010, but testified he never saw any water infiltration and was unaware of any cracks in the foundation. RELATED STORIES: But the man who bought the house argued that there was evidence that extensive renovation work was done in the basement between 2015 and 2017, “and that the work was more extensive than the defendant admitted.” “The plaintiff suggests that the admission of fixing a small hole in the crawl space at the front of the house is a red herring to distract from the extensive water infiltration issues at the back of the house,” the court decision said. “The defendant maintains that she had no water issues in the house. She denies having replaced any drywall in the laundry room or doing any non-cosmetic repairs in the rec room. She denies replacing any baseboards. The defendant denies that there were any latent defects that she knew of or ought to have known of, and staunchly defends herself against this action.” ‘Ought to have known’ In her ruling, the judge said that the new homeowner had the burden of proving that the defendant “knew or ought to have known” about the water infiltration. “They must further prove that these defects were known to the defendant, and she purposely concealed them in order to sell her house, or in the alternative, there was a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of any of the representations made by the defendant,” the decision reads. When the house was put up for sale, the woman listed it on MLS as “very well maintained” and in “move-in condition.” “While it is true that the defendant provided an image of a well-maintained, move-in-ready home, I find that the water infiltration issues, which appear to be longstanding and significant, render the image untrue, inaccurate, and misleading,” the judge wrote. “Therefore, I find the concealment represents a misrepresentation for which the defendant is liable.” ‘Wilfully ignorant’ She also ruled that the woman either knew about or was “wilfully ignorant” of the water infiltration issues. “I reject the defendant’s evidence that she merely did some touch-up painting on the baseboards as a result of her dog chewing them,” the judge wrote. “On a balance of probabilities, I find it impossible to accept that she would have been unaware of the water damage on the corner between the rec room and the laundry room. If she was unaware, she was wilfully blind to it.” Even if there was no intention to deceive, the judge ruled that the “defendant’s statements were, at a minimum, negligent.” The new homeowner was awarded the full cost of repairs — $119,595.75 — along with $10,000 in general damages. The judge declined, however, to award any punitive damages. A decision on awarding court costs will be made at a later date.
