Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants Annie Turcot and Martin Lizotte committed fraudulent misrepresentation (dol) by falsely declaring in the vendor's disclosure that there were no odours of humidity or traces of mould, despite their personal knowledge of both conditions.
• Concealment extended to the in-ground pool: when directly asked, the defendant described it as "merveilleuse" and provided photos that did not reveal its deteriorated condition.
• Multiple hidden defects were established, including water infiltration through two foundation cracks, widespread basement mould, non-compliant insulation and vapour barriers, and a non-functional in-ground pool.
• Buyers Cristina Biscotti and Vincent Gagné qualified as prudent and diligent purchasers, as the defects were hidden behind walls, objects, and cluttered storage rooms that were dark and largely inaccessible during the inspection.
• Pre-purchase inspection by CIA found no signs of mould or water infiltration, and the vendor's disclosure actively reassured the buyers, diminishing their obligation to investigate further.
• Defendants' counterclaim alleging abuse of procedure was dismissed, as the buyers' legal action was neither frivolous nor manifestly unfounded.

Facts of the case

In March 2022, defendants Annie Turcot and Martin Lizotte listed their multi-level residence in the St-Hubert borough of Longueuil, Quebec — originally built in 1987, where they had lived since 1997 — at an asking price of $599,000. The Centris listing, prepared with their real estate broker and approved by both defendants, described the property as "très bien rénovée" and "minutieusement entretenue," and specifically highlighted the in-ground pool as an amenity that would enhance the buyers' summer days. Plaintiffs Cristina Biscotti and Vincent Gagné, first-time homebuyers with no construction knowledge, visited the property during the COVID-19 pandemic for approximately fifteen minutes and subsequently submitted an offer. After a bidding period, their offer was accepted on March 15, 2022 at $725,000.

The sale was subject to two conditions: a pre-purchase inspection and a pyrite test. On March 18, 2022, the buyers attended a two-hour inspection conducted by Marc Verret of the Centre d'inspection accrédité du Québec (CIA). The 58-page inspection report noted certain elements to correct to prevent potential water infiltration, all classified as non-urgent, and concluded that the property was in generally good condition with no signs of mould or active water infiltration observed. Because the pool was covered in snow, Ms. Biscotti asked Ms. Turcot about it directly; the defendant described the pool as "merveilleuse" and said the family used it every year until the last possible moment. The buyers later requested photos of the backyard and pool, and the images provided showed a sunny summer scene with no indication of any problem. On March 24, 2022, satisfied with the inspection results and the vendor's disclosure, the buyers lifted their conditions. The notarized deed of sale was signed on May 30, 2022.

Upon taking possession on May 30, 2022, the buyers immediately noticed a strong, nauseating odour. When Ms. Biscotti questioned Ms. Turcot about it, the defendant replied that they had occasionally used a dehumidifier in the basement — a fact that had never been disclosed. Outside, Ms. Turcot then told the buyers that the pool "needed love," which again came as a shock. In the days that followed, the buyers discovered significant mould patches in the basement bedroom closet, mould signs behind appliances in the basement bathroom, and saturated insulation inside a wall cavity. On June 16, 2022, during a rain event, a puddle of water approximately 20 to 24 inches in diameter was found in one of the basement storage rooms, confirming active water infiltration. The buyers notified the defendants, and on July 18, 2022, served a formal notice of hidden defects.

Contractual clauses and vendor's disclosure at issue

The vendor's disclosure form completed by both defendants stated that there had been no odours of any kind, including humidity, no mould or rot, and no periodic accumulation of water on the property. The only water infiltration disclosed was a minor incident in 2014 through a skylight, which the defendants stated had been repaired with no subsequent problems. These representations were central to the buyers' decision to proceed with the purchase. The Centris listing's characterization of the property as a "clé en main" residence materially influenced the buyers' expectations and their degree of reliance on the vendor's representations. The court also considered the legal guarantee against hidden defects under Article 1726 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.), which obliges a seller to warrant that the property is free from hidden defects that render it unfit for its intended use or that diminish its utility to the point that the buyer would not have purchased it, or would have paid a lower price, had they known.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court found that the defendants committed fraudulent misrepresentation (dol) under Articles 1401 and 1407 C.c.Q. on two distinct matters: the presence of humidity odours and mould, and the condition of the in-ground pool. With respect to the basement conditions, the evidence established that the defendants had used a dehumidifier intermittently for years to manage humidity and odours, and that Ms. Turcot had personally observed mould traces on a storage room wall just days before the property was listed for visits in mid-March 2022. Despite this, neither fact was disclosed. The court found the defendants' testimony to be marked by hesitation, evasiveness, and contradictions between their pre-trial examinations and their in-court testimony, and concluded that their declarations of good faith were not credible.

Regarding the pool, the court held that the defendants knew the pool was at the end of its useful life — its liner had been patched and repaired in multiple places — yet described it as "merveilleuse" when directly asked, and provided photos that concealed its true condition. Ms. Turcot's own testimony confirmed she was aware the pool was functionally on its last legs. The court applied the principle that where a party takes the initiative of providing information to the other party, it must do so fully and completely; failing to do so constitutes dol by reticence.

On the question of hidden defects, the court found the following to constitute serious hidden defects within the meaning of Article 1726 C.c.Q.: water infiltration through two foundation cracks, widespread mould and humidity throughout the basement, non-conforming insulation and vapour barriers in the storage spaces, mould on joists and behind walls from a past infiltration through the right wall, mould traces on gypsum and cut joists in the ceiling, and the non-functional state of the in-ground pool. The court found that the sealed skylight did not constitute a serious hidden defect, as expert testimony confirmed no active infiltration remained and the structure was unaffected. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the defects were apparent, noting that the great majority were hidden behind objects, walls, mouldings, or located in dark and cluttered storage areas that were difficult to access during a normal inspection. The buyers' pre-purchase inspection, which found no signs of mould or infiltration, supported this conclusion. The court further held that the defendants' own reassuring representations — both in the vendor's disclosure and verbally during the inspection — reduced the buyers' obligation of vigilance and effectively rendered legally hidden any defects that might otherwise have been considered apparent.

On the question of remedy, the court noted that under Article 1407 C.c.Q., where dol is established, the choice of remedy belongs to the party whose consent was vitiated. The buyers elected annulment of the sale. The court found this remedy appropriate, noting that estimated repair costs exceeded $100,000 — rising to approximately $146,000 when including the pool with a 50% depreciation factor applied — representing roughly 25% of the originally listed price of $599,000. The entire basement had been rendered unusable since the summer of 2022, the buyers had invested their full savings in the purchase, and expert testimony left open the possibility of additional foundation cracks elsewhere. The court rejected the defendants' argument that annulment was impossible because they had since purchased another property, finding no evidence that restitution would cause financial ruin. It also declined to deduct an occupancy indemnity, consistent with Article 1704 C.c.Q. and applicable jurisprudence. The defendants' counterclaim for abuse of procedure was dismissed, as the buyers' legal action was well-founded and the defendants themselves acknowledged at trial that certain defects were indeed hidden.

Ruling and outcome

The Superior Court of Québec, per the Honourable Maude Grenier, J.C.S., ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, Cristina Biscotti and Vincent Gagné. The court annulled the notarized deed of sale dated May 30, 2022. The defendants were ordered to pay the following sums within 30 days of judgment, all bearing legal interest and the additional indemnity under Article 1619 C.c.Q. from July 18, 2022: $725,000 as reimbursement of the purchase price; $12,915.84 for acquisition-related costs, corresponding to pre-purchase inspection fees and the transfer tax; $21,730.51 for emergency measures and necessary expenses; and $15,000 in moral damages for stress, disturbance, and inconvenience. The defendants were further ordered to sign all documents necessary to give effect to the annulment, retrocession of the property, and discharge of any hypothec. The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs of justice, including expert fees not already compensated by the preceding orders. The total monetary award expressly ordered in favour of the plaintiffs amounts to $774,646.35, exclusive of legal interest, the Article 1619 C.c.Q. additional indemnity, and any remaining expert costs whose precise total is not specified in the judgment.