How have the claims of the Eberts against the Aitchisons regarding the sloping floor of their home been interpreted?

The statement of claim in paragraph 4 alleges that the Aitchisons made representations concerning the condition of the property which they “knew were untrue or, alternatively, without reasonable regard to their truthfulness”. However, the Eberts conceded at the hearing that they were not alleging fraud but rather than the Aitchisons were negligent or acted with a reckless disregard to the circumstances. I find no evidence of fraud. As well, I am satisfied that the conduct of the Aitchisons was neither reckless nor negligent. The Aitchisons told the court that they were aware of the slope of the kitchen floor from the time they moved into the house in 1979. They said they never had anyone look at it because it did not affect their use and enjoyment of the property. They did not mention it in the Property Condition Disclosure Statement because it did not concern them. Their experience was that floors of homes often sloped slightly and this did not seem to be out of the ordinary. They said they had no concerns about the structural stability of the home. They denied placing the table in the kitchen to disguise the slope. I accept their evidence. I note as well that an inspection of the home by a qualified person before purchase would have disclosed this structural problem. The Eberts considered such an inspection and decided against it. There was no act of concealment of latent defects by the Aitchisons. Accordingly, the claim of the Eberts concerning the sloping floor must fail. See Crozman v. Ruesch, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2345 (B.C.C.A.). The Indoor Pool – CONCLUSION