How has the court dealt with allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation in real estate law?

Jakubke v. Sussex Group (1993), 31 R.P.R. (2d) 193 (B.C.S.C.) dealt with the purchase of a house from a vendor who was also the general contractor, who had been renovating the house, and who had knowledge that one of the bedrooms being renovated did not conform to the height requirements in the Building Code in place for West Vancouver. Mr. Justice Errico held that this was a latent defect and that the vendor's failure to disclose the latent defect amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation. He made that finding despite the fact that the height of the bedroom ceiling was readily visible and measurable. There was a specific finding that the work had been completed after final inspections had been undertaken and the work that was done was, to the knowledge of the vendor, unauthorized and unlawful. The court also found that the bedroom and bathroom did not comply with the current Building Code. However, if they had been part of the original construction 50 years prior to the sale to the plaintiffs, the two rooms would have been in compliance at that time even though they were now non-conforming. Mr. Justice Errico concluded: I think that what was to be observed here was not a patent defect. What could be observed here could have been lawful, depending on the date of construction. While what could be observed should have excited concern and suspicion in the minds of the realtors ... the defect was not one that arose by necessary implication from something visible to the eye. I think that in this case, where the remodelling was done without a building permit and in direct contravention of the directives of the appropriate authorities, and was done by ... [the vendor] or under his direct instructions, that there was then constituted a latent defect, and that the conscious non-disclosure of that defect ... constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation. (at p.203)