However, there are other cases where the lack of necessary permits and/or non-compliance with the building code has been found to be a latent defect. For example, Jakubke v. Sussex Group (1993), 31 R.P.R. (2d) 193 (B.C.S.C.), relied upon by the plaintiff, involved rooms that had been added to a house four or five years before the purchase at issue. That addition had been built without permit and did not comply with building code in force at the time the work was done, although it may have been lawful if built at an earlier date and subject to different requirements. Errico J. held the lack of building permit and non-compliance to be a latent defect and held the vendor liable for “conscious non-disclosure.”
"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.