In 2023, a couple purchased a home only to discover that the floors contained
\nasbestos-contaminated vermiculite, an insulation material commonly used before the 1990s but now controversial. The couple claimed $15,000 from the sellers for asbestos removal work on the grounds that it constituted a latent defect. The sellers, for their part, sought $5,000 for abuse of process.<\/p>\n
The Court dismissed both claims.<\/strong> Why? Because, even though asbestos is invisible to the naked eye, the home remained habitable and safe. In other words, there was no loss of use: the home could be used normally. The Court concluded that the vermiculite contained asbestos, but that this did not constitute a latent defect. It highlighted several important elements:<\/p>\n - The home remains habitable and safe ; In short, the mere presence of asbestos is not sufficient to establish a latent defect.<\/strong> According to the Court, the asbestos caused no functional loss and no proven danger to the occupants. Therefore, no latent defect. The Court clarified that even if the sellers had been aware of the presence of asbestos, this would not have changed the outcome of the dispute as long as the material remained stable and risk-free.<\/p>\n
\n- There is no evidence that asbestos fibres are being released into the air ;
\n- The buyers did not ask any questions about the presence of asbestos at the time of the sale ;
\n- The sellers did not breach their obligation of delivery ;
\n- No clause in the contract mentioned this point and no legal obligation was breached.
\nviol\u00e9e.<\/p>\n