‘Biohazard’: B.C. townhouse buyers sue sellers over urine-soaked master bedroom

This stock image shows a damaged carpet and subfloor. (Credit: Shutterstock)

A B.C. couple who paid more than $22,000 to repair extensive urine-related damage they discovered when they took possession of a townhouse three years ago have won their lawsuit against the sellers.

Morteza Mohamadighanatghestani and Mana Novin paid $1.26 million for the Coquitlam property in March of 2022, according to Judge Robin McQuillan’s decision which was handed down in provincial court Monday.

The buyers told the court that when they took possession of the property in July of 2022, they were unable to actually move in.

“They discovered that the master bedroom smelled of urine and the carpet and the sub-floor below it had been destroyed by absorption of urine. Both the carpet and the sub-floor ultimately had to be replaced, at significant cost,” according to the decision.

“The claimants say that they made considerable effort to resolve their complaints, both directly through their Realtor and later through a lawyer, but that the defendants refused to engage with them.”

Unable to reach a resolution, the couple sued the sellers, Jaehwan Lee and Hyeyoung Park, for breaching the contract of purchase and sale which included a term that stipulated the property would be in “substantially the same condition” upon possession as it was when the buyers viewed it.

The matter went to trial.

Home ‘not liveable’

In support of their claim, the buyers provided reports from those they hired to address the issue after their own attempts to resolve it, by leaving the windows open and running an air purifier 24/7, were unsuccessful.

One of the companies they hired was Mobi Cleaning, which carried out a UV light inspection of the carpets.

“It is the opinion of Mobi Cleaning Canada that the master bedroom is not liveable due the extensive urine and strong odour,” the inspection report, which was reproduced in the court decision, said.

“This urine and odour may cause a health and wellness risk. The carpet and underlay require replacement. The foundation under the carpet and underlay needs sanitization. The walls and ceilings will need sanitization as much of the urine has evaporated from the carpet into the surround areas.”

After receiving that report, the buyers called in a carpet cleaning company, which did its own assessment.

“In 43 years of cleaning carpets the smell and staining in carpet in this master bedroom was one of the worst we have come across,” a report from the company said.

“The carpet would smell even more if we tried to clean it. The carpet and the underlay should be completely removed from this room and be replaced. In our opinion this is a biohazard.”

Before the buyers repaired the damage, they called in the person who had done the pre-purchase inspection to provide a follow-up report. The inspector, Sasa Stojanovic, also testified at the trial.

Stonjavic told the court that the townhouse was in “slightly above average” condition and had “no notable smells” when he inspected it before the sale closed.

That was not the case when he returned, he testified.

“He said that the odour of urine in the master bedroom was so strong that he had to leave the room several times to get fresh air,” the decision said.

Efforts to remedy damage

After the inspection, the buyers set about trying to remedy the issue by removing the carpet and underlay, the court heard.

“The urine had soaked through the carpet and underlay and had soaked into the sub-floor in extensive portions of the master bedroom and the hallway leading to it. That resulted in dampness on the sub-floor as well as a persistent urine odour throughout the upper floor of the residence even after the carpet had been removed,” the decision said.

“The claimants attempted to resolve the dampness and odour issues by keeping the bedroom doors and windows open on the upper floor with two fans running for over a week, as well as applying hospital grade disinfectant to the floor. Despite these efforts, the odour and dampness persisted.”

Unable to eliminate the odour, the couple had the subfloor removed. After that, they washed and repainted the walls to address the issue of “the evaporation of urine into the surrounding areas,” the decision said.

Seller denies claims

Only one of the sellers, Jaehwan Lee, testified at the trial. He told the court the townhouse was in “the same condition” upon possession as it was when it was viewed several months prior.

He did not, however, submit any documentation to support this claim.

“He could not provide any explanation as to why the residence would smell of urine or that it would be as damaged as the claimants allege,” the decision said, noting that Lee was not actually living at the home in the months between the viewing and the possession date.

The judge found there was “considerable and compelling evidence” supporting the buyers’ claim, including documents and witness testimony.

The fact that the sellers did not respond to the buyers after the issue was raised was also something the judge noted.

“Had the defendants truly believed that the carpets were perfectly fine, they could have engaged with the claimants, investigated the carpets themselves and come to a solution or obtained evidence that the carpets were fine. But they chose not to,” the judge wrote.

Because the sellers denied there was any damage, the decision has no information about the source of the urine and does not engage with that question. The fact that someone living in the home owned a puppy at some point is the only hint at a potential cause.

Finding the contract of purchase and sale had been breached, the buyers were awarded $22,270.61 in damages for the costs of addressing the urine-related damage.