March, 2017 | Purvis Culbert Law

In the 1986 movie, the Money Pit, a young couple move into a home that is terribly dilapidated. While falling down stairways and leaking bathtubs in this movie are enjoyable for comedic value, no one enjoys these things when they happen to you!

A home is the single largest purchase most people will ever make. Therefore, it is important to take the time to investigate your purchase prior to closing and not be pressured by lawyers, real estate agents or family members. Also, you should be careful not to fall in love with a home (too much) prior to proper inspection. You may be excited about your new home, but if you choose to waive your inspection, miss defects, or close on an “as is where is basis,” disaster may follow. For example, in Anderson v. Lawrence, 2013 NBQB 21, Justice Morrison of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick heard the home purchasers’ claim against the vendors’ for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. The purchasers suffered serious water damage in their basement and the ceilings in the main floor of the house caused by a leaky roof.

The purchasers had viewed the property prior to purchase and saw water in the basement and detected a musty smell, but were assured by the vendors and a real estate agent that the problems had been solved. There were also issues with the septic system. Finally, the purchasers received 17 acres of land rather than 34 acres, as the vendors represented.

The Court in Anderson, supra held that the vendors both negligently and fraudulently misrepresented the water leakage and the size of the land. As a result, the Court ordered the plaintiffs were entitled to $24,339.49 for costs of repairs and $13,070 for the value of the missing 17 acres of land in addition to interest and legal costs.

This case is a helpful lesson to purchasers of homes to be extremely critical before committing to a purchase. It’s easy to end up with your own version of a money pit! Here are some helpful tips to assist you with the purchase of your home:

1. Hire a licensed property inspector. The cost ranges from $200-$500, but will be worth every penny if your inspector finds issues that you may not be able to see with your own eyes;

2. Use checklists to evaluate the condition of the home. Here is a link to a helpful checklist that you may wish to use to evaluate the condition of the home. As stated in the checklist, it should not be relied upon nor be a replacement for a certified home inspection. We make no representations or warranties about the accuracy of the information either, but believe it is a helpful starting point;

3. Attend the inspection with your licensed inspector. Make sure you attend the home with your inspector and ask lots of questions;

4. Read the inspection report carefully and discuss with you inspector, legal counsel and real estate agent;

5. Research the inspector. Not all inspectors are created equally. Take the time to ask potential inspectors questions about their experience, qualifications, costs, etc.

Like all family law issues, the question of whether to send a child on an access visit when the child expresses she does not want to go is fraught with difficulties. Courts have determined that the answer is ultimately fact specific. In Geremia v. Harb, 2007 CanLII 1893, Justice Quinn held that a custodial parent must do everything possible, even physically forcing the child, to ensure that the child attends access visits. He stated at follows at paragraph 44:

[44] Mr. Wilson argues that our law does not require a parent, who wishes to avoid a contempt citation, to physically force a child to go on an access visit. I respectfully disagree with that argument as a general legal principle. Whether a child should be physically forced by the custodial parent to go on an access visit depends upon the facts of the case. Certainly, the force used should not be such as to cause physical harm to the child. And, although the specter of emotional harm is far more problematic, a custodial parent would be advised to ensure that the evidence supports such a risk before declining to physically force the child to abide by an access order for that reason. Undoubtedly, there are many tasks that a child, when asked, may find unpleasant to perform. But ask we must and perform they must. A child who refuses to go on an access visit should be treated by the custodial parent the same as a child who refuses to go to school or otherwise misbehaves. The job of a parent is to parent.

(emphasis added)

At paragraph 38 in Germania, Quinn J. quoted Zuber J. in Singer v. Singer regarding situations where a parent is not actively denying access but the child does not wish to go and the parent is not forcing the child to go with the other parent:

[38] What about cases where the custodial parent insists that he or she did not wilfully refuse access to the other parent but, instead, the child refused to go on the access visit? Two cases were cited by Mr. Wilson on this issue. The first one is Singer v. Singer (1974), 17 R.F.L. 18 (H.C.J.), where a father complained that the mother refused to comply with the terms of an access order. Zuber J. commented, at p. 19: [Counsel] has cited me an American authority, but it sounds very sensible to me and I would be prepared to follow it, that the mere whim of a child, that the child’s preference cannot be the governing factor in these matters.

In L.C.M. v. B.A.C., 2010 NBQB 127 (CanLII), Walsh J. of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench quoted paragraph 44 of the Germania case and stated, “In my opinion those comments have application to the modified circumstances in the present case. It cannot be forgotten that S. is only 7 years old. ” However, Walsh J. noted that while the mother’s failure to send the child would normally be of great concern, given the father’s behaviour (unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct) and the mother’s contributions to the alienated situation, an order for contempt was not appropriate. Walsh J. considered the best interests of the child and granted sole custody of the child to the mother but with unsupervised access to the father.

What stands out in these cases is that there are no “hard and fast” rules about whether to send a child on access visits or not. However, absent satisfactory reasons for not sending a child, Justice Quinn’s comments in Germania are instructive: “the job of a parent is to parent.” (emphasis added) In other words, both cases stand for the proposition that custodial parents should not refuse to send children on access visits based on the mere whims of the children in stating that they do not wish to go, unless there are substantiated reasons for refusing to do so. Another key takeaway from these cases is that parents who do not make reasonable attempts to ensure that children attend access visits may face allegations of contempt of court. (see for example, Cashman v. Cashman, 2014 ONSC 3581 (CanLII), distinguishing Germania but providing an instructive discussion of civil contempt in family law matters).

Month: March 2017

5 tips for home buyers prior to closing!

She doesn’t want to go on access visits. Do I still need to send her?