What is the legal test for the sale of a property where the seller alleges there was a cannabis grow operation at the time of sale?

The sellers say the representation, which is the subject of the dispute, was set out in the property disclosure statement, which was not incorporated into the contract. They say the contract describes the only representations that survive the completion of the sale. Further however, relying on Lamontagne v. Andersen et al., 2005 BCSC 343, 29 R.P.R. (4th) 98, the sellers say that even if the representation had been incorporated into the contract, the buyers would fail in the absence of evidence that the sellers knowingly made false statements. They say the sellers assumed no duty to investigate such indications of a grow operation as stains on the sinks or water marks on the walls which were apparent to the buyers. Here, as in Lamontagne, the sellers say that the buyers’ failure to note signs of concern on their own inspection of the premises is evidence that weighs heavily against them in relation to the claim that the sellers ought to have suspected a previous grow operation.