Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on whether the Defendant misrepresented the nature of the sewage system at 65 Boscobel Road, specifically the existence and function of a grinder pump.

• Plaintiffs alleged negligent or intentional misrepresentation by the Defendant regarding the property’s connection to municipal sewage and sought damages for costs incurred after a sewage backup, replacement of the grinder pump, and anticipated future expenses.

• Defendant relied on caveat emptor and the “as is where is” clause in the purchase agreement, maintaining there was no misrepresentation and that all relevant components were observable before purchase.

• The Court found the grinder pump system was not a latent defect and that the Plaintiffs had the opportunity to inquire about the system but did not do so.

• Plaintiffs did not provide expert evidence to support claims about the system’s adequacy or future costs, weakening their case for damages.

• Costs decision emphasized the Defendant’s repeated, more favorable settlement offers and awarded a substantial contribution to legal costs, reflecting the Plaintiffs’ pursuit of trial despite the evidence.

Facts of the case

Stanley Strug and Cynthia Joyce Robertson (Plaintiffs) purchased 65 Boscobel Road (Lot 23) from I.M.P. Group Limited (Defendant) on August 17, 2020. The property was originally serviced by a private septic field, but after subdivision and development, a grinder pump system was installed in 2017 to connect the house to municipal sewer due to its downhill location. The Plaintiffs, who had experience owning several properties, specifically sought a home with municipal water and sewage. The listing described the property’s water and sewer as “municipal.” The Plaintiffs visited the property multiple times before purchase, observed the pump controller and exterior chamber, but did not ask questions or request further inspection of the system.

After moving in, the Plaintiffs experienced a sewage backup on March 26, 2021, which led to the discovery of the grinder pump’s function. The Plaintiffs incurred costs for plumbing assistance ($4,830.44) and chose to replace the grinder pump at a cost of $15,064.54, rather than repair it. They claimed damages for these costs, anticipated future expenses, and alleged a negative impact on the property’s value due to the grinder pump system.

Discussion of policy terms and contractual clauses

The Agreement of Purchase and Sale included an “as is where is” clause, added after the Plaintiffs negotiated a $35,000 price reduction due to other identified repairs. The Plaintiffs waived receipt of a Property Disclosure Statement. The agreement required the Defendant to provide all available manuals, but the Plaintiffs did not receive documentation on the grinder pump until after the backup incident.

Legal issues and analysis

The Court considered whether the doctrine of caveat emptor applied, and if any misrepresentation by the Defendant or its agents would vitiate this principle. The judge found that the grinder pump system was not a latent defect but a visible and integral part of the property’s sewage connection. The Plaintiffs had the opportunity to inquire about the system but did not, relying instead on their own assumptions. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs’ evidence did not establish that the system was inadequate or that its presence constituted a defect. The Court also found that the “as is where is” clause did not shield the Defendant from liability for misrepresentation, but no misrepresentation was found. The Plaintiffs’ claim that they would have negotiated differently had they known about the grinder pump was not supported by the evidence.

Outcome and costs decision

The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim, finding no actionable misrepresentation or breach by the Defendant. The only damages proven related to the cleanup after the sewage backup ($4,830.44) and minor general damages ($500), totaling $5,330.44. The Plaintiffs’ decision to replace rather than repair the grinder pump was not compensated, as there was no evidence of necessity or repair cost.

In the subsequent costs decision (2025 NSSC 241), the Court noted that the Defendant made repeated, more favorable settlement offers ($9,500) which the Plaintiffs did not respond to. The Defendant sought a lump-sum costs award, arguing that the case’s circumstances warranted a departure from the standard tariff. The Court agreed, awarding the Defendant 66% of its reasonable legal fees (excluding HST), amounting to $51,810, as a substantial contribution to its costs. The Court emphasized the importance of encouraging settlements and deterring unmeritorious litigation, especially where formal offers are made and not accepted.

Conclusion

The Plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed, with the Court finding no misrepresentation or latent defect regarding the grinder pump system. The Defendant was awarded $51,810 in costs, payable forthwith. The only damages provisionally assessed were $4,830.44 for cleanup and $500 for general damages, as the Plaintiffs’ broader claims were not substantiated. All findings, names, amounts, and dates are directly supported by the uploaded court decisions.