# What do you think about this law suit?



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

_Interesting, but when does time become a factor?


_BOWMANVILLE -- Eric and Sade-Lea Tekoniemi thought they had bought their dream home in Bowmanville last fall. But it turned into a house of nightmares after they learned it had been the scene of a horrific double murder 15 years earlier.
That discovery has now led to a lawsuit against the real estate firm, an agent and the house's former owners for allegedly failing to reveal the home's history.
"I suffered panic attacks and am still on anxiety medication," Sade-Lea Tekoniemi said Monday of her response to living in the house.
Eric Tekoniemi noted he also felt stress at work and less companionship at home. The uncertainty about his wife's health and the frequent trips to the emergency room were hard on him, too.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Intrusive thoughts are an awkward thing. You can't really tell someone to just forget, because that's not how memory works (see here: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/ts.htm ). 

It would seem the buyers have a sort of 2nd hand PTSD. That is, upon learning of what took place there, even though it didn't happen to them or be witnessed personally, now they are saddled with intrusive thoughts of "Oh my god, I'm in the room where X did Y". So it's not anything dumb like ghosts, or whatnot, just extreme difficulty in dissociating the place where you live your everyday life, from thoughts about the same place being the site of something disturbing. In the case of the husband, he's just cleaning up the psychological mess from what has happened to his wife.

In some respects, the ideal solution is for the real estate agent to pay for treatment of the intrusive thoughts. That is, the wife goes to see a psychologist for behavioural treatments to progressively stop thinking about the house-as-murder-site. We know that this can be remedied, and probably for no more than a couple of thousand bucks, if the wife is willing. I think it is not really all that different from someone selling a house without mentioning a particular critical needed repair, prior to selling. The buyer has entered into a commitment, based on insufficient information, and the vendor needs to make amends for whatever shortcomings were not conveyed prior to purchase.

It sounds to me like the wife is perhaps at risk for such difficulties anyway, but this just made things worse. It IS a weird suit, I'll grant you.

Our long-time family doctor was on the receiving end of what I believe is Canada's first and only "wrongful birth" suit (though you can find many more American examples online), launched by a couple who ended up with two children with muscular dystrophy, as a result of the doctor's failure to carry out the relevant prenatal tests that would have permitted the parents to elect to abort.

We live in a very interesting age. We can look back at legal records from several centuries ago, and laugh at some of the court cases where spells and witchcraft might have enetered into the proceedings, but the sorts of cases that enter the courts these days may well be looked at as equally bizarre, several centuries from now.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I'm sure weird stuff happened in a couple of places I've lived--but this suit is weird, and not realistic.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Wierd I know but I was born there .. but I am trying to remember the actual murder. The guys name sounds like somebody I knew.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i can't see it bothering me in the slightest. i don't believe in ghosts, and if somebody froke out and killed someone else before i lived there, what does that have to do with me? in fact, if i knew before buying i'd try to use it to leverage a better deal.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

If it made a place cheaper to buy, I'd be more interested in buying. 

A previous owned died in my house I think. Big deal. The manner of someone's death doesn't affect the place where they died. Sometimes I sleep in the bed where my Dad died, because we still own my parent's former home.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I see a movie script in the making. The lawsuit is a joke though.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I live in a heritage building that's 112 years old. I'm sure a lot of unsavoury events occurred in the exact spot that I'm sitting at this moment. It would only bother me if they were occurring at this moment. Other than that, being aware of them would only be as interesting as watching a History channel documentary.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2012)

We're the 24th owners of the house we bought in '94.
Built in '59. 13 times, it was due to divorce settlements. 
Within two weeks of moving in, we were getting junk 
mail for dating services. We joked about that service
being in collusion with the real estate agent to constantly
flipping the house for commissions. lol.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

There was a triple murder close to my neighbourhood a few years back. You might remember the 13-year old girl who, along with her boyfriend, killed her parents and younger brother. The house sat empty for a few years and then was sold and is now occupied. I'm sure the present owners know, as there would have had to have been full disclosure of that event and it's a small place. I'm not squeamish about most things but don't think I could live in that house.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The things that people think of as making a place "unliveable" can be quite varied. I remember a couple years ago there was a big stink stemming from a funeral home's application to build in this one neighbourhood. The structure would have been convenient for many, and would have been situated on a major thoroughfare, so it wasn't like they were planning on sticking it anywhere bizarre. However, there was a big hue and cry from the local Chinese community, who felt that it would "bring bad luck". From their perspective, it was like a strip club who applied to move into a residential area with lots of young families. This was _their _neighbourhood, and they'd be damned if they would either put up with it, or be forced to move.

Just what the minimum "magic distance" is supposed to be, between such a facility, and residences, in order for "bad luck" to be avoided, was never made clear. One was left with the impression that all funeral homes would have to be at least a half mile outside the city limits to avoid complaint.

I mention this just to illustrate that stuff which would likely not make any of us here blink or take any notice, can be extremely upsetting to other folks who are, for all intents and purposes, completely sane and reasonable people.

All of that being said, real estate agents and vendors should make honest efforts to inform prospective buyers about things they will eventually learn from neighbours or other sources; it's the fair and ethical thing to do. If it creeps you out, then you still have the choice to not buy. If you buy, sell your previous dwelling, and THEN find out, your choices are not quite as flexible.

I don't know what the couple are suing *for* (i.e., amount), but I understand what they are suing *about*.

Sometimes, when there is a particularly high profile case, that would not only interfere with sale, but emotional affects many nearby, the property is torn down, and the land re-purposed. The textbook case here is Mount Cashel in St. John's. Of course, I suppose there will always be someone for whom even the faintest association will provoke unwanted thoughts.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

I remember that one. 

The lawsuit is about disclosure, which in a real estate deal must be very thorough.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

I doubt that the agents either knew or intentionally withheld this information from them as it becomes a focal point to help reduce the price of the home.
I always get a kick out of folks who are looking to make a quick buck at the expense of others or when you have those folks who are NOT IN MY NEIGHBOURHOOD.
We have had folks who bought property near the airport and then complained years later that due to more traffic at the airport that the property has gotten to noisy for them ( what the hell did they think would happen near an airport ) or those who buy in a new develpoement that is near a trucking route and then complain the smell of all the trucks are causing them to stay inside and not open windows, even though the road was there when they bought it and so were the trucks driving down that road. But now they want the trucks gone and sent to some other area ( oh and I am sure the property assements { property tax } are based on the fact that not everyone would live in this area because of the trucks so thus keeping their property tax lower then some of the others in that neighbourhood, but boy would they bitch should those rise.Oh well we can't make everyone happy but for some cash seems to help doesn't it.ship


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Here are some of the extra details that a few of you have been pondering.

Ron England, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, murdered his mother, Marian Johnston, 74, and stepdaughter, Jenny, 6, in the home on April 2, 1996. He stabbed his mother 34 times and the child 89 times. The little girl was left lying on the floor with a knife embedded in her heart.
The Tekoniemis are seeking $450,000 in damages plus costs, from Re/Max First Realty, agent Mary Roy, and former owners Arthur Hewer and Sharron Lindsay, who had themselves purchased the home several years earlier.
The claims made in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.
Ron Gordon, the broker-owner of Re/Max First Realty, would not talk about the case, saying, “I don’t discuss company business with people outside the company.”
Hewer and Lindsay said their lawyer advised them not to speak about it because the case is before the courts. Roy could not be reached for comment.
The couple filed the claim last week. The defendants have not yet submitted statements of defence.
The Real Estate Council of Ontario, which regulates the industry, issued a warning to Roy last month on the grounds that she “deliberately withheld a material fact known to her” regarding the murders from the buyers, contrary to the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. The decision followed a complaint by the Tekoniemis earlier this year.
The council cited several provisions in the act’s code of conduct, including not engaging “in any act or omission that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonorable, unprofessional or unbecoming a registrant.”
Lawyers say the case involves a grey area in common law on the issue of “duty to disclose” — and how to assess what information that entails.
If the claim proceeds to trial, it could become a test case for the doctrine of “caveat emptor,” or buyer beware, and whether the couple’s situation is an exception to that general rule.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

When we bought our house, our agent disclosed the fact that the previous owner had died in the dining room. Didn't bother us in the slightest, but our agent explained that a lot of people got freaked out by that sort of thing and that she was obliged to tell us about it. Murder is a whole other thing, but I don't think that would bother us... much...


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

If the realator knew about the history of the house and didn't disclose this information, they are lying by omission.
I can only imagine that a house that was the scene of a double homicide is a tough sell,
but knowing that and not relating it to a potential buyer isn't right.

Some people would be freaked by that scenario and would not wish to spend their days and nights in such a house.
If you're a buyer, especially new to the area, are you supposed to scour the archives for possible wrong-doings in the house you're interested in?
If the realator was privvy to this info and didn't divulge it, that's wrong.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

Every house I've bought I've asked if anything happened in it or if someone died in it. I think the couple will win their lawsuit because the couple that sold the house and the agent both knew about the murder. The Real Estate and Business Brokers Act ver clearly states that the agent can't withhold information. She has already admitted that she knew about the murders. I doubt they will be awarded 450 grand though.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> Really? It says the seller's agent has to disclose everything it knows to the buyer? I know nothing about Ontario real estate law, but that is pretty unusual. Do you have a reference to the specific section? I'd be curious to see how that obligation is worded.


I may be off base but I believe that law has to do with leaking roofs, leaking basements, bad furnaces etc etc. I do not believe it has anything to do with what went on inside the house in terms of any former occupants private matters or deaths


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Would you refuse a hospital bed, emergency gurney, or room, based on the fact or suspicion that someone died there? Would you sunbathe on a beach where someone had washed up? Whether it's the death or the manner of death, matters not. How long ago does it have to be? Is the there statute of limitations on silly suspicions? Does it matter if it's not people? What about fish? I've killed a lot of them then slept within inches of where the killing happened.

Oh, never mind, this is getting silly.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Why would the sellers agent be allowed to withold information?


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Well, you don't have to live on that beach, or in that hospital.

If someone past away, that may be different, it may not.
A double homicide might make someone think twice about buying/living in that house.
It should ultimately be left to the buyer to decide.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

My co-worker won an out-of-court settlement b/c the seller of his home tried to cover up a termite problem. He won enough to cover the cost of the repairs & his legal fees, which seemed fair. He lives in BC, no idea if the disclosure laws are similar in ON.

I wouldn't place too much faith in a home inspector, there's not a lot of regulation in that industry. My father, who does not work in construction, caught some things that the $300 inspector had missed.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Knowing about it and not telling someone is lying by omission, isn't it?


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

nkjanssen said:


> Really? It says the seller's agent has to disclose everything it knows to the buyer? I know nothing about Ontario real estate law, but that is pretty unusual. Do you have a reference to the specific section? I'd be curious to see how that obligation is worded.


Yep. Look it up, anything that will effect the value of the house must be disclosed to any potential buyers. Section 32 Paragragh 2b, (b) full disclosure of all facts within the registrant’s knowledge that affect or will affect the value of the real estate;


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

TA462 said:


> Yep. Look it up, anything that will effect the value of the house must be disclosed to any potential buyers. Section 32 Paragragh 2b, (b) full disclosure of all facts within the registrant’s knowledge that affect or will affect the value of the real estate;


But that is totally subjective and easily dispensed with in court. You could argue that the previous owner put an ugly, mismatched colored shingle and that it affects the value. Same could be said for all interior design. Same as murders, as evidenced in this thread alone. Some people could care less and some would not go near the place. So it cannot be used across the board. Whereas if you have a cracked foundation and it needs $15,000 worth of repair and they did not reveal that information, that is what the law was created for. In terms of murders, If it was recent, like the current owners and the son was selling it because his father blew his mothers head off then his own, I would think it common sense to tell a perspective buyer, although I still don't think its law to do so. If you allow law suits like this one you could have an owner of a 100 year old house that has owned it for 20 years and then somehow found out that a murder was committed in the house 75 years ago and 6 owners ago and try to sue the last guy that owned it. It makes no sense


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

This is interesting reading as well, 

STIGMATIZED PROPERTY DISCLOSURE
Is the seller obligated to disclose if there has been a murder, suicide or ghosts in the property?
NO. There is no "law" in Ontario that requires the seller to provide disclosure of a murder, suicide or ghosts in a property. 
However, Realtors are governed by RECO and their local real estate boards which have rules and regulations regarding disclosure and require Real Estate Agents to disclose any material facts that affect the market value of the property. Therefore, if a Real Estate Agent has knowledge of an event such as a murder they are required to disclose such information to the purchaser (in most cases - depending on how long ago the event took place). Real Estate Agents must be careful to avoid misrepresentations, error and concealment of facts.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

TA462 said:


> This is interesting reading as well,
> 
> STIGMATIZED PROPERTY DISCLOSURE
> Is the seller obligated to disclose if there has been a murder, suicide or ghosts in the property?
> ...


Thats the biggest legal loophole I have ever seen. Very simple to defend. "I never knew anyone was murdered in the house your honor".


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

GuitarsCanada, I agree with you. It is kind of stupid when you use your example but you need to remember, the realtor knew about the murder and she didn't say anything to the purchaser. She knowingly misrepresented the house to the purchaser. That is the only fact that the purchaser has to follow through with a lawsuit. The Realtor, from what I understand has already been disciplined. I believe they will win BUT I doubt they will win 450gs.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

New Holmes On Homes episode: Mike exorcises the lingering demons from a suburban bungalow.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

LOLOL, that would be a great episode. largetongue


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

What if it was a grow op? Any disclosure required by realtor and/or seller?


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

If the house had been repaired of the damages of the grow op, why would it have to be disclosed?

You can't undo a double homicide though.
It might not affect the value so much, but you'd think that it'd affect the possible resale of the house.
Some prospective buyers wouldn't touch the place, if they were informed, that is.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

sulphur said:


> If the house had been repaired of the damages of the grow op, why would it have to be disclosed?
> 
> You can't undo a double homicide though.
> It might not affect the value so much, but you'd think that it'd affect the possible resale of the house.
> Some prospective buyers wouldn't touch the place, if they were informed, that is.



So the buyer can, if they choose, have an inspection done to verify the damages were fully and correctly repaired, with no lingering potential after affects (mould, etc.). I think we would all agree, not all contractors or repair people are as qualified or thorough as they would like to think.

I don't get disclosing a homocide though. There's no actual house damage from the death itself, barring of course blood stains or bullet holes if it were violent.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Some people wouldn't want to live there, is that so hard to grasp?

That then would affect selling the house.
Why not disclose it if you'd think that it wouldn't?


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I see what you're saying, but traffic, you can find that out,
annoying neighbours, ignore them, raccoons, deal with them.

Why did the agent get reprimanded?
Isn't that an admission of guilt, in some way?

I've read some of the laws regarding real estate and it says in bold "Caveat Emptor".
I also understand that you're trying to sell the property and not give every negative detail.

I also know for sure, that if I found out after I bought and moved into a house,
then found out that this happened in it and I wasn't told, when there was direct knowledge about it,
I'd be pretty choked and I'd certainly go after the previous owner and their agent.

I think that the nondisclosure of that information had everything to do with selling,
or better yet, *not *selling the house. Undoubtably that information would drive some buyers away.
Or, the ones that might buy, would want a big chunk taken off the asking price.
So, the circumstances *would* affect the value, or even resaleability of the house.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

nkjanssen, you seem to be going off in other directions then the facts of the case and you didn't read my quote right. The realtor knew about the murder and she was bound by law to disclose that. She failed to do so, period. Thats the facts. That is why the purchaser has every right to take her to court. Stick to the facts of the story and the purchasers win. 

Someone mentioned grow ops, they too need to be disclosed.

Bill 18 2007
An Act respecting the disclosure of information about marijuana grow operations
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
Definitions
*1. *In this Act,
“agent” means a person who, for compensation, commission or any other thing of value, sells or rents property on behalf of an owner; (“agent”)
“property” means real property. (“bien”)
Owner to disclose grow operations on property
*2. *(1) An owner of property shall, before entering into an agreement to rent or sell the property,
(a) ensure that the owner is familiar with the common indicators that a building or structure has been used as a marijuana grow operation;
(b) if the owner has engaged an agent with respect to the rental or sale, provide the agent with a signed statement indicating whether or not the owner has any reason to believe that the property has ever been used for a marijuana grow operation; and
(c) if the owner has not engaged an agent with respect to the rental or sale, provide a prospective tenant or purchaser with a signed statement indicating whether or not the owner has any reason to believe that the property has ever been used for a marijuana grow operation.
Disclosure by representative
(2) For the purposes of clauses (1) (b) and (c), the owner may, in writing, appoint a representative to sign the statement on the owner’s behalf.
Application
(3) This section applies to every owner who enters into a tenancy agreement or an agreement for purchase and sale on or after the day this Act comes into force.
Agent to disclose grow operations on property
*3. *(1) Before entering into an agreement on behalf of an owner to rent or sell property, an agent shall,
(a) ensure that he or she is familiar with the common indicators that a building or structure has been used as a marijuana grow operation;
(b) make reasonable efforts to determine whether any of the common indicators are present in the property;
(c) if he or she determines that any of the common indicators are present, disclose them to the prospective purchaser or tenant in a written statement at the earliest opportunity; and
(d) obtain from the owner a signed statement referred to in clause 2 (1) (b) and disclose the statement to the prospective tenant or purchaser.
Application
(2) This section applies to every agent who enters into a tenancy agreement or an agreement for purchase and sale on behalf of an owner on or after the day this Act comes into force.
Chief of police to disclose grow operations in municipality
*4. *(1) A municipal chief of police shall, from time to time, publish and make available to the public a list of addresses of current and former marijuana grow operations that have been identified within the municipality.
Commissioner to disclose grow operations in municipality
(2) Where the Ontario Provincial Police provides police services in a municipality, the Commissioner shall, from time to time, publish and make available to the public a list of addresses of current and former marijuana grow operations that have been identified within the municipality.
Same
(3) The Commissioner may delegate his or her duties under subsection (2) to a member of the Ontario Provincial Police who provides police services in the municipality.
Same
(4) Any disclosure made under this section is deemed to comply with clauses 42 (1) (e) of the _Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act_ and 32 (e) of the _Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act_.
Offences
*5. *(1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person,
(a) fails to provide a statement in contravention of clause 2 (1) (b) or (c);
(b) fails to obtain a statement in contravention of clause 3 (1) (d); or
(c) knowingly makes a false statement under section 2 or 3.
Penalty
(2) A person, other than a corporation, who is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $25,000.
Same
(3) A corporation that is guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $100,000.
Commencement
6. This Act comes into force three months after the day it receives Royal Assent.
Short title
7. The short title of this Act is the Grow Ops Disclosure Act, 2007.

EXPLANATORY NOTE
The Bill requires property owners and agents to disclose information to prospective tenants and purchasers about the use of a property for marijuana grow operations. The Bill also requires chiefs of police to disclose information to the public about current and former marijuana grow operations in a municipality.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

_____________


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episod...d-real-estate-and-what-sellers-must-disclose/


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

nkjanssen said:


> Huh?
> 
> I asked you to point me to the statute that would require the realtor here to disclose that he knew about the murder. You pointed me to a statute that says that if the realtor was selling his _own_ property, he would have to disclose the murder (maybe - even then it's pretty subjective). Nothing in the section you quoted says that the realtor here would have to disclose it. Apparently there is a statute dealing specifically with grow ops, and you've obviously quoted that. Interesting, but this was a murder not a grow op. I think I'm actually the one sticking to the facts here. If he's "bound by law" to disclose the murder, surely you can point me to that law. I'm not saying that law doesn't exist somewhere, but I haven't found it. And you haven't pointed me to it.


Dude, that quote was from the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. The quote has nothing to do with a Realtor selling his own property. I also gave you a Quote from the RECO, the Real Estate Council of Ontario. Its the body that is responsible for administering the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. Any Realtor governed by the RECO MUST DISCLOSE ANY MURDER ON ANY PROPERTY THEY ARE SELLING THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF. PERIOD, NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS. You win, I'm done. :wave:


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

It's falls under "Material facts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_fact

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_050580_e.htm

*Material facts*
*21. *(1) A broker or salesperson who has a client in respect of the acquisition or disposition of a particular interest in real estate shall take reasonable steps to determine the material facts relating to the acquisition or disposition and, at the earliest practicable opportunity, shall disclose the material facts to the client. O. Reg. 580/05, s. 21 (1).
(2) A broker or salesperson who has a customer in respect of the acquisition or disposition of a particular interest in real estate shall, at the earliest practicable opportunity, disclose to the customer the material facts relating to the acquisition or disposition that are known by or ought to be known by the broker or salesperson. O. Reg. 580/05, s. 21 (2).

This would come into play...


*Fairness, honesty, etc.*
*3. *A registrant shall treat every person the registrant deals with in the course of a trade in real estate *fairly*, *honestly *and with* integrity*. O. Reg. 580/05, s. 3.

It's called a "Stimatized house". Worth between 10-30% less than market value.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

On a bit of a diversionary note, would you not buy an otherwise immaculate '58 Les Paul if you knew it had been used to murder another person by bashing them over the head with it? I wouldn't think twice about it's "mojo". It's a great piece of wood no matter what it's history. Guitars don't kill people, people kill people (apologies to Mr Heston).


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Wasn't that an episode of Bones?

And as for guitars not killing people, that doesn't mean they don't *want* to:

[video=youtube;_8HZeQ2p4kw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8HZeQ2p4kw[/video]


----------

