contract-law canada real-estate
Is it Legal Not to Disclose Problematic Neighbors When Selling a House?
<p>In most places in Canada, there are certain things a home seller must disclose to potential buyers, such as known problems with the house, e.g. a leaky roof, mold, etc.
<br />
I'm in Nova Scotia, specifically.</p>
<p>Usually this is done via a property condition disclosure statement.</p>
<p>The question is, does this extend to other perils, like known criminal behavior of immediate neighbors?</p>
<p>Hypothetical scenario to illustrate what I'm talking about:</p>
<p>Let's say a there's one problematic neighbor, causes problems for all of his neighbors. He's a general nuisance, causes property damage, poisoning pets, etc. He has arrests for these things, and was told to leave the area (restraining order) for a period of time. All of this causes one of the neighbors to list his property in despair so that he can get away from the nuisance, as it's a detriment to his quality of life.</p>
<p>This came up in discussion my wife and I were having, as we both know someone experiencing this exact issue. We weren't sure if the person who bought the house from the fed-up seller would be entitled to some remedy if the seller didn't disclose the problems with the immediate neighbor.</p>

<p>Nova Scotia does not have mandatory disclosure laws as exist in many US states, where you may be explicitly required to reveal neighbor problems (California: <a href="https://www.car.org/-/media/CAR/Documents/Transaction-Center/PDF/Standard-Forms/2020-June-Final/TDS-VERSION-1-REDLINE-(1).pdf?la=en&amp;hash=D42DDF11D099FB7A7ED0A9D5F74950C4781C44F8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">item 11 on the forms</a>). Instead a Nova Scotia seller / buyer must rely on what is explicitly included or excluded under case law. This problem would likely fall in the realm of latent defects, not a patent defect that is readily discoverable by an ordinary inspection. In that circumstance, the vendor would have a duty to disclose  dangerous defects, ones that render the property useless for a buyer's purpose (as understood by the seller), or else stop-work orders and the like that fundamentally affect the value of the property.</p>
<p>There is <a href="https://www.uslegalforms.com/jsfiller-desk13/?requestHash=001ac5f9cccdcb3811d25db2c2a5ff1f847268c23625c24d6a9b981f6a65327b&amp;ref=https://www.uslegalforms.com&amp;projectId=738768503&amp;loader=tips&amp;et=as#5cae6fcf04d701957f8b19e303827e13" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a form</a> that the Nova Scotia real estate commission uses for sellers to disclose defects, but this is optional and only represents their considered legal opinion as to the likely non-disclosures that could land them in court (some of the underlying cases are Lambert v. Gillis (1993), 122 N.S.R. (2d) 296; Chisling and Hatcher v. Frame (1990), 98 N.S.R. (2d) 417; King and Bowser v. Kesebi (1985) 68 N.S.R. (2d) 175 – see <a href="https://www.lians.ca/sites/default/files/documents/PropertyConditionDisclosureStatements.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a>). The questions primarily address physical characteristics of the real estate, with some mention of pollution sites near the property, zoning and other legal matters limiting the usefulness of the property.</p>
<p>The fundamental legal question is whether what you describe falls in the realm of fact that a seller has a duty to disclose. Current Nova Scotia law favors the &quot;caveat emptor&quot; regime, with exceptions carved out to require disclosure of a limited number of most-detrimental facts.</p>
