CMHC on leaky condos: no ‘duty of care’
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is facing a class-action lawsuit from leaky condo owners in the lower mainland and has a message for the people who suffered from this billion dollar debacle: F##k Off, its not our problem.
The lawyer for the CMHC argued on monday that his client shouldn’t be on the hook for the leaky condo crisis since it owes no “statutory duty of care” to homeowners.
Lawyer Ross Clark argued in B.C. Supreme Court Monday that the housing department is under no statutory obligation to Canadians in the wake of the billion-dollar housing construction disaster that first surfaced in the early 1990s.Many families were left in financial ruin, forced either into bankruptcy or saddled with repair bills ranging from $25,000 to more than $250,000 per household.
Clark urged Supreme Court Justice L. Smith to dismiss the latest effort to certify a class-action lawsuit against the housing agency. The same court denied an effort for certification in 2002.
Why yes, now that you mention it, this is the same CMHC that claims on its website to be “committed to helping Canadians†by improving “building standards and housing construction†and providing “policymakers with the information and analysis they need to sustain a vibrant housing market in Canada.†It just so happens that this is also the same CMHC that was made aware of concerns about housing construction practices in coastal Canadian climates in the early eighties.
The CMHC isn’t to blame, Clark said, for the water-logged walls and mould-infested interiors of condominiums and townhomes built during the 1980s and 1990s. That responsibility rests with those behind the “poor design and construction.â€Peter Simpson, of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, said he was puzzled by the CMHC’s arguments in court. “I think it was an unfortunate comment to place the blame squarely at the feet of two members of the whole building community.â€
Simpson said the leaky condo crisis was a “systemic problem and so there’s no shortage of blame to go around.â€
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
May 17th, 2007 at 9:18 am
..and judging by the scent around the morning ’smoke breaks’ at the construction sites I walk by in the morning there also seems to be a lot of weed to go around.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:48 am
So CMHC is committed to helping Canadians unless they actually need help?
May 17th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I’m not sure that wanting to do something necessarily translates into a legal requirement to do something.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
You’re a publicly funded institution dedicated to giving sweet loving to pretty ladies?
If not then stop being a contrarian wiseass and add something useful to the conversation for a change.
On the other hand if you ARE being publicly funded for this service, where do I sign up for your job?
May 17th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
You’d might as well blame CDIC for letting a bank make a car loan to someone who bought a lemon.
Put the blame where is belongs, with provincial and local governments who are responsible for writing and enforcing building codes and consumer protection legislation.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Shoddy workmanship.
Not the building code, but good old crappy workmanship that wasn’t caught/enforced by an inspector.
Well, there was one case that I’ve come across of outright fraud, where excessive condensation was occuring inside a wall because the builder took the insulation out after the inspector signed off on it, to use it on another project.
What I learned when I bought my place, and was reminded of while recently helping a relative (who really wants to buy now, despite my advice to the contrary) is that sometimes, realtors lie. Other times, they don’t know and didn’t bother to ask, or they’re just completely oblivious.
Of the four buildings I did quick walk-around exterior tours of recently for my relative, all 4 were described as problem-free buildings, three were great Landmark Arms buildings, never a problem, will last forever!
…But three of the four had had some walls replaced with new wall assemblies, ongoing work (”that’s just water ingress, a little moisture, it’s not a leaky condo”)… Ugh, (some) realtors make me sick. At least my relative won’t be buying into any of the three leakers.
She made an offer on the fourth building, which I tentatively OKayed, but her offer was a little under asking, the only offer, and the owner refused to sell for any less than $6K *over* ask. That unit has since been taken off the market because the owner couldn’t get the price he wanted.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
May 17th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Link
May 17th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Link
I mean. HOLY COW. Really?
May 18th, 2007 at 8:49 am
My matchbook-cover law education (which accounts for nearly nothing) says the CHMC is not only un-responsible for the quality of the homes that people build & buy, but in fact, the CMHC has no way to even FORCE builders to make better homes.
Since you want “someething useful” in these comments how about YOU refer to legal precedent that says otherwise?
Personally I think people are suing CMHC because there’s some possibility they’ll get money and damn the righteousness of it.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
That’s selling a call option on real estate.
Why do investors sell call options? Why are they willing to give up future capital gains in return for money now?
May 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
A few possibilities:
1) they may obtain much better than market prices using this method
2) they obtain money now for something they only have to sell in the future… “now” money is worth more than “future” money
3) there is the possibility that the prospective purchaser will default, leaving the owner with a windfall deposit
4) tenants will probably treat the property a lot better if they will eventually own it.
5) their financial master plan may involve them selling that property in a few years regardless
6) … the most obvious : they don’t expect particularly great capital appreciation going forward
May 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pm