{"id":9598,"date":"2023-01-12T09:38:01","date_gmt":"2023-01-12T14:38:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.djclegal.com\/?p=9598"},"modified":"2023-06-15T14:22:04","modified_gmt":"2023-06-15T19:22:04","slug":"legal-news-december-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.djclegal.com\/en\/legal-news-december-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"December 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
Written by Me\u00a0Pierre-Alexis Bombardier<\/a>\u00a0and Me Cl\u00e9ment Lucas<\/a><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t Although every seller is required to warrant to their buyer that the property sold is free from latent defects rendering it unfit for its intended use\u00b9, it is possible for the parties, in their contract, to diminish the effects of such a warranty or to exclude it completely.<\/p> However, as the Honourable Luc Hupp\u00e9 J.C.Q. points out in this decision, a clause excluding the legal warranty of quality does not release the seller from all responsibility for the condition of the property sold. The seller remains responsible for their personal actions \u00b2.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t Ms. Dominique Jacques (“Ms. Jacques<\/strong>“) is claiming compensation from her sellers Maryse Fontaine and Jacques Boisvert (“Sellers<\/strong>“) for what she considers to be latent defects affecting the unit of a divided co-ownership that she purchased in 2018.<\/p> She alleges defects affecting the fa\u00e7ade (swelling of the bricks) and poor soundproofing of the building. Considering that a clause excluding the legal warranty of quality is written in the deed of sale, Mrs. Jones must prove that the sellers deliberately misled her about the characteristics of the property sold, “despite her own diligence in requesting and obtaining the information relevant to her purchase<\/em>“.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t As for the first claim, namely the one based on the swelling of the bricks on the fa\u00e7ade, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not proven fraud, as the sellers had transmitted to her the minutes of the co-owners’ meeting mentioning the poor condition of the bricks (albeit in general terms). “It was then incumbent upon Ms. Jacques to inquire in greater detail, with the syndicate or with the sellers, about the nature and extent of such problems<\/em>.\u201d<\/p> In this respect, the present decision is reminiscent of a decision that we commented on in a previous news item<\/a>. <\/strong>There is no doubt as to the importance of communicating the minutes during the process of selling a unit held in divided co-ownership, as they act as a true bulwark against a recourse in latent defects.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t As for the second claim, that is the one based on the low level of soundproofing of the building, Justice Hupp\u00e9 j.c.q. concludes that there was indeed fraud. The Sellers had provided Ms. Jones, through their broker, with inaccurate information, namely that they had never had any complaints from the tenants of the unit concerning the noise \u00b3 (which is contradicted by the evidence administered).<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t This being the case, the extent of the liability of the Sellers is reduced considering that “Mrs. Jacques could by herself have suspected potential problems concerning the soundproofing of the building<\/em>“, because the inspection report prepared for her benefit identifies a possible problem of soundproofing in the building.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t It is also interesting to note that the Court raises, ex officio, that the lawsuit relating to the soundproofing of the building was instituted on October 27, 2021, more than three (3) years since the problem was noticed, that is to say a “delay longer than the prescription period set by article 2925 of the Civil Code of Quebec<\/em>“, but that since the prescription periods were suspended by ministerial order due to the declaration of sanitary urgency, the lawsuit was instituted in a timely manner. In the end, an indemnity of $10,000 was awarded.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\tJacques c. Fontaine, 2022\u00a0QCCQ\u00a08063\u00a0<\/a><\/h2>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\tRaymond c. Boily, 2022\u00a0QCCQ\u00a08778<\/a><\/h2>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t