This site uses cookies.

The types of cookies we use, and the way we use them, are explained in our Privacy Policy. By clicking "Accept" or continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of Cookies.
More information


 

Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker
BRMadigan@Rogers.com

RE/MAX West Realty Inc.,
Brokerage
Independently owned and operated

96 Rexdale Blvd. 
Toronto, Ontario 


Phone: 416-745-2300

Cell: 647-404-8150 
Toll Free: 1-888-507-0817

Search in:  
    
    
       

Sort by:

Expert Witness Testified about Value of Property

December 17, 2018 - Updated: December 17, 2018

Expert Witness Testified about Value of Property
 

In Bouskill v. Campea (1976) the Ontario Court of Appeal noted the testimony of an Expert Witness.
 

As noted in the decision:
 

“An expert witness testified at the trial that the deficiency would be significant to a purchaser contemplating subdivision.”
 

In this case the depth was deficient by about 11 feet. It was 160 feet, 11 and ¾ inches off what was in the contract, namely 172 feet. This amounted to 6.4%.
 

At issue was the general term: “more or less”.
 

This decision was made by the Court:
 

                        Counting dollars, not counting feet and inches
 

So, while the deficiency in fact amounted to 6.4%, it certainly doesn’t mean that we are good with something much less than that.
 

In this case, 6.4% was relevant, it affected value. It was an important consideration. But, remember 3 inches might be too!
 

Consider a situation where the Seller believes the property is 60 feet wide. He sells the property to someone with the “more or less” reference included.
 

The municipal by-law make provision for the minimum lot size to be 30 feet. Can the Buyer withdraw if it turns out that the total frontage actually measures out to be 59 feet, 9 inches? That’s only 3 inches short of two lots.
 

The Buyer would potentially have 2 lots, each 30 feet wide, now we are left with one fairly wide lot which is 59 feet, 9 inches.
 

Based upon the Bouskill v. Campea case, I would expect “more or less” to be interpreted consistent with value, not inches. Although we are only looking at 3 inches in total, the whole value of that second lot is gone.
 

This means that each individual case would have to be determined upon its own merits.
 

Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker

www.iSourceRealEstate.com


Tagged with: value inches short bouskill v. campea value key not dimensions ontario law
| | Share

Brian Madigan LL.B. Broker

RE/MAX West Realty Inc. Brokerage

Independently owned and operated

96 Rexdale Blvd. , Toronto Ontario,

Phone: 416-745-2300

BRMadigan@Rogers.com

Powered by Lone Wolf Real Estate Technologies (CMS6)