The Ontario Superior Court considered an action by the purchaser of a house who had two young children. The vendor did not disclose to purchasers the fact (that was well known in the area) that a convicted sex offender lived across the street. The vendors asked the judge to throw the case out because it was “plain and obvious that the fact that the person who lives across the street was convicted of child pornography is not a latent defect because it was common knowledge in the neighbourhood, and could have been discovered on reasonable inquiry,” wrote the judge in his decision.

The court sided with the purchasers and refused to strike the action, ruling it was not certain that a seller did not have to disclose to purchasers with two young children the existence of a person living across the street who has been convicted under the Criminal Code of being a child offender.  (Dennis v. Gray, 2011)

*             *          *          *          *         

A and B were married and bought a property with the intent of building their new family home.  Later, they changed their plans and the property and home were sold.  A was charged under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act as a builder who did not register with Tarion Warranty Corporation.  The home was not enrolled.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld A’s acquittal.  It ruled that A’s intention at the early stage of the project was most important. A builder is one who performs all the work and supplies all the materials “for purposes” to sell the house to others.  A’s original intention was not disputed nor in doubt.  The Act did not apply because A’s intention changed later.

*             *          *          *          *

In a husband and wife dispute, an arbitrator made an award that the husband was to make a payment to the wife of $264,468 out of his share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The husband then made an assignment in bankruptcy and the arbitrator’s award was incorporated into a “order” of the court.

Notwithstanding this, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the award did not mean there was an equitable trust in the proceeds effective against the trustee in bankruptcy. In other words, the award was not sufficient to elevate the wife in bankruptcy to that of a preferred or secured creditor by some form of equitable trust.  Therefore, the husband’s share of the proceeds of the sale of the house was vested in the bankrupt estate. (Thibodeau v. Thibodeau, 2011)

Donald Lapowich, Q.C. is a partner at the law firm of Koskie, Minsky in Toronto, where he practices civil litigation, with a particular emphasis on real estate litigation and mediation, acting for builders, real estate agents and lawyers.