So the gist of it is that a couple bought a mansion in Vancouver and it wasn’t disclosed that the person who owned it previously had been gunned down on the property because he was supposedly a Chinese triad leader. Two years after he was shot at the front gate, the house was put on the market.
The judge in this case nullified the purchase agreement because that information was not disclosed and put the family moving in at risk.
I’m not sure I agree with this decision. I don’t believe there is a requirement to disclose if someone died on or in the property and I’m not convinced there is any further risk to the family moving into the home. It was a targeted shooting which resulted in the death of the previous home owner. I see nothing to indicate there would be risk to future owners.