What is the quantum of damages awarded against a vendor who concealed the buckled exterior wall?

In holding for the plaintiff the trial judge found that the buckled exterior wall was a patent defect that had been concealed and therefore, a fraudulent misrepresentation had occurred. In concluding so, however, the trial judge accepted that, when the work had been undertaken, the defendant did so without any fraudulent intention whatsoever. The evidence established to the trial judges’ satisfaction that, when the work had been undertaken, the vendor had intended to live in the house for the rest of his life and had no intention of selling it. This lack of fraudulent intent on the part of the defendant, however, was not sufficient to overcome the fact that a concealment amounting to a misrepresentation had occurred. Wright J. applied Unrau v. Gay, supra, and found that the quantum of damages were those necessary to “remedy” this situation.