Of most relevance to the issue here are his comments at para. 41: Given the clear presence of a real and substantial danger in this case, I do not find it necessary to consider whether contractors should also in principle be held to owe a duty to subsequent purchasers for the cost of repairing non-dangerous defects in buildings. It was not raised by the parties. I note that appellate courts in New Zealand … Australia … and in numerous American states … have all recognized some form of general duty of builders and contractors to subsequent purchasers with regard to the reasonable fitness and habitability of a building. In Quebec, it is also now well-established that contractors, subcontractors, engineers and architects owe a duty to successors in title in immovable property for economic loss suffered as a result of faulty construction, design and workmanship … However, it is right to note that from the tone of Dickson J.'s reasons in Fraser-Reid v. Droumtsekas … he would appear to be cool to the idea, though he found it unnecessary to canvass the point. For my part, I would require argument more squarely focused on the issue before entertaining this possibility. [Citations omitted.]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.