Me Loiselle successfully represented Ms. Gauthier in a claim under the legal warranty of quality following the purchase of a property. The Court recognized several latent defects, including a foundation crack, a hole beneath the main entrance door, and a defective balcony structure. The plaintiff obtained a price reduction (adjusted for depreciation) corresponding to the cost of remedial work, together with damages for trouble and inconvenience and the reimbursement of expert fees.
Me Loiselle obtained the dismissal of a latent defects action brought against Ms. Bélanger arising from the sale of a century-old residential property. The Superior Court concluded that the alleged defects did not constitute latent defects, as they were either known to the buyers or discoverable by a prudent and diligent buyer. It further found that the sellers had breached no duty to inform and had committed no fraud. The buyers were ordered to pay the legal costs, including expert fees.
Me Loiselle obtained a judgment ordering a contractor to refund $46,857 following the termination of a renovation contract for a secondary residence. The Court concluded that the 10% penalty clause invoked by the contractor was unenforceable, as it had not been properly brought to the consumer’s attention, in contravention of the Consumer Protection Act. As a result, the contractor could only retain the value of the work actually performed prior to termination. After deducting the substantiated amounts, he was ordered to refund the plaintiff $46,857, plus interest and the additional indemnity.
Me Loiselle successfully represented Mr. Sadasivan in defending against a latent defect claim and obtained reimbursement of legal fees for her client due to the plaintiff's abuse of process.
On appeal, the Court confirmed the finding of abuse of process in the latent defect claim, emphasizing the lack of serious grounds and the excessive nature of the claims. The Court upheld the quantum of damages, finding no reviewable error demonstrated by the appellants. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Me Loiselle represented Ms. Ly in a commercial lease dispute. The Court found that the lease had been terminated due to the landlord's fault (unilateral eviction). While the landlord claimed all outstanding rent remaining under the lease term, the Court ordered the tenant to pay only accrued rent. The landlord cannot claim future rent and must bear the consequences of its own fault. The counterclaim was granted in part and the Court offset the two amounts.
Ms. Thompson, represented by Me Loiselle, purchased a modular home and discovered water infiltration and mold in an addition to the modular home. She filed a latent defect claim against the defendants. The Court found that the sellers had performed insufficient "patching", that the defect existed prior to the sale and was objectively hidden. The latent defect was recognized and the plaintiff obtained a reduction in the sale price.
Me Loiselle represented the plaintiffs in a forced title transfer action, which was granted by the Court. The sellers (defendants) refused to honour a promise to purchase, claiming that certain conditions had not been met on time (financing, sale of the other house). The Court found that, even though formal notices were transmitted late, the sellers had implicitly waived the deadline requirements and acted in bad faith by attempting to withdraw. The financing condition was granted for the benefit of the promisee-purchasers. The sellers were compelled to transfer the immovable to the plaintiffs at the price agreed upon at the conclusion of the promise to purchase, less the difference in financing interest given the rise in the prime rate in the interim.
Me Loiselle successfully represented Ms. Phan in a simulation and acquisitive prescription action concerning an immovable. Ms. Phan, having immigrated to Quebec but speaking neither French nor English, had placed the title to her property in the names of certain of her children and secured it with a counter-letter. The defendants claimed ownership of the property, which was occupied by Ms. Phan. The Court recognized Ms. Phan as the true owner of the immovable based on evidence of secret agreements (simulation) and continuous possession for over ten years (acquisitive prescription).
Following their failure to file a factum within the prescribed time limits, the appellants were unable to demonstrate that their appeal had a reasonable chance of success. Consequently, their motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs. The trial judgment was therefore upheld.