What is the test for disclosing a latent defect in a commercial building?

He secondly argues that on the basis of common law there was a latent defect in the building, which the vendors were obligated to disclose to the purchasers. His position is that the defect after closing is the infiltration of water into the basement and onto the floor. He argues that a vendor is obliged to disclose latent defects of quality that are known to the vendor and that make the property unfit for habitation. He relies on the decision on Swayze v. Robertson[1] where the court notes: A “latent defect” … is in effect some fault in the structure that is not readily apparent to an ordinary purchaser during a routine inspection. And ordinarily, if a vendor actively conceals a latent defect, the rule of caveat emptor no longer applies and the purchaser is entitled, at their option, to ask for a rescission of the contract or compensation for damages.