The Effect of Illegal Views on the Vendor’s Warranty
Against Eviction
Douglas H. Tees –
Does the existence of undeclared illegal views emanating from a
sold property constitute sufficient grounds for the resiliation of the
sale or promise of sale? The problem is of significant practical im-
portance if one judges by the abundant jurisprudence it has generated
in the Quebec courts. More often than not, the plaintiff is the disil-
lusioned or insolvent buyer who finds in the undeclared illegal view
a convenient pretext to vacate his unwise purchase.
The plaintiff-purchaser will demand resiliation of the contract
he has signed on the grounds that he has suffered a partial eviction
caused by the existing views which he has discovered to be illegal.
In a contract of sale, the vendor is obliged to warrant the purchaser
against eviction.’ If the purchaser suffers eviction of a part only of
the thing, and that part is of such importance that he would not have
bought without it, he may vacate the sale ;2 if it is not of such im-
portance, however, he may only claim indemnity.3 As well, a special
provision (article 1519 C.C.) deals with property charged with an
unapparent and undeclared servitude. Here, the resiliation of the sale
is subject to the above criterion of importance; no actual eviction
need take place, however, for the purchaser is entitled to bring his
action as soon as he is informed of the existence of the servitude.
In the first place, it is relevant to ask whether the purchaser has
really suffered a partial eviction at all. Since the views are apparent,
should not the careful buyer be obliged to visit the Registry Office
to discover whether a valid servitude exists in his favour?
The jurisprudence holds conclusively 4 that no such obligation exists
on the part of the purchaser, but rather, that it is up to the vendor
to inform him of the inexistence of these apparent, active servitudes.
Of the Junior Board of Editors.
‘Article 1506 C.C.
2 Article 1517 C.C.
3 Article 1518 C.C.
4Forget v. Gohier et Paquin [1945] B.R. 437; Legault v. Hersehorn (1924)
37 B.R. 26; Collin V. Lemieux [1957] C.S. 385; Weinberg v. Styvat Realty Corpo-
ration [1962] C.S. 79; Lecavalier v. Chaloux [1965] C.S. 554.
No. 3]
NOTES
The purchaser has the right to assume that what he sees has the
legal right to be there.
Lafleur, J. in Lecavalier v. Chaloux declares:
I appartenait au vendeur d’informer son acheteur de l’inexistence d’une
servitude active que des signes ext~rieurs rendaient apparente. Si l’article
1508 C.C. impose au vendeur 1obligation de d~clarer les charges qui affectent
il lui impose aussi, d’apr~s la jurisprudence, l’obligation de
l’immeuble,
d6clarer que ce qui affecte 1immeuble de fagon apparente n’existe pas en
fait et ne confure aucun titre. 5
As well, paragraph 350 of Baudry-Lacantinerie et Saignat reads
as follows:
L’acheteur qui se trouve priv6 d’une servitude active sur laquelle il 6tait en
droit de compter d’apr~s le contrat, n’obtient pas tout ce que le contrat
devait lui procurer; il subit donc une 6viction partielle.6
It may be stated, therefore, that the purchaser is entitled to a
remedy. Since resiliation of the sale is his principal goal, however, it
is important to determine whether the loss of these active servitudes
may be brought under those articles of the Civil Code which allow
him to vacate the sale.
Will the contract be more easily resiliated if it is merely one of
promise of sale and not the deed of sale itself? The courts have
answered 7 that the promise to buy is subordinated to the condition
that the titles be clear and perfect where such a condition is specified
in the promise. Furthermore, the eviction need not be imminent –
the mere danger is sufficient to justify a demand for the annulment
of the promise. The reasoning of the learned judges in these cases,
however, seems to lie in the nature of the promise of sale itself as a
preliminary guarantee to the purchaser, enabling him to withdraw
from the sale if the object does not measure up to expectations.
La n~cessit6 d’une option ou promesse d’achat… est 6videmment dans le
but de permettre au promettant acheteur de s’assurer, avant de signer le
contrat et dans le d~lai fix6 par l’option, si les conditions et clauses pr6vues
dans ladite promesse de vente sont exactes et r~elles et, dans le present cas,
elles 6taient clairement sp6cifiges: “titles to be good and clear.” Or, les
titres ne remplissent pas cette qualit6 lorsqu’il existe une servitude appa-
rente qu’aucun titre ne couvre.8
Batshaw, J. in Weinberg 9 is of the opinion that articles 1517 and
1519 C.C. are not applicable in a promise of sale:
[19651 C.S. 554, at p. 559.
6 Traitg de Droit Civil, 3e 6d., XIX (1908), p. 349.
7 Collin V. Lemieux, supra, footnote 4; Weinberg v. Styval Realty Corporation,
supra, footnote 4; Fedorka v. Successors to Swift – Copland Building Ltd. [1965]
C.S. 490; Desjardins V. Corbeil (1930) 49 B.R. 162.
8 Legault, J. in Fedorka, supra, footnote 7 at p. 493.
9 [1962] C.S. 79, at p. 82.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
(Vol. 13
This article [1519 C.C.] as well as article 1517 C.C. … deals with warranty
against eviction after a sale has taken place, and it does not necessarily
apply to the right of the buyer to execute the deed of sale in the absence
of a good and clear title.
Thus, for the purchaser, time is relevant. If he is able to invoke the
inexistence of the servitude before the deed of sale has been signed,
he may well be able to avoid the execution of that deed.
After the completion of the deed of sale, the buyer, in order to
vacate the sale, must come within the requirements laid down in
either 1517 C.C. or 1519 C.C.
Article 1517 begins with the words, “If the buyer suffer eviction
of a part only of the thing”; the question arises: what constitutes
partial eviction? According to Colin and Capitant:
Le recours en garantie peut 6tre exerc6 par l’acheteur, lorsqu’il y a un
trouble, c’est-h-dire pr6tention menagante d’un tiers.10
Although actual juridical proceedings by the neighbour are not
necessary, some threat must be evident. In the case of illegal views, it
seems unlikely that the owner of the neighboring property, who has
tolerated these inroads on his privacy while the vendor was owner,
would force the new owner to close or mask the illegal views. In the
case of Tourangeau V. Leclerc,” where views were discovered to be
illegal the neighbor even went so far as to guarantee the new owners
that he would not trouble their possession. In the words of Tasche-
reau, J.:
Je viens done b la conclusion que Ia demanderesse n’est pas encore troublde,
qu’elle ne le sera peut-6tre jamais, et qu’il n’y a pas lieu, dzs lors, d’annuler
les deux actes de vente par le seul motif que le terrain acquis par la deman-
deresse a des vues [illgales].12
Unless there is an actual threat, then, the purchaser is unable to
avail himself of the provisions of article 1517 C.C.
Article 1519, on the other hand, contains no such stipulation; it
provides that the purchaser may bring his action as soon as he is
informed of the existence of the servitude. This article is a special
text relating to servitudes. It is interesting to note that under the
old French law, the responsibility for undeclared charges was con-
sidered as part of the warranty against latent defects; the Code
Napol6on brought it under the hypothesis of partial eviction. 3
The text of article 1519 C.C. refers only to unapparent servitudes.
There has been some debate in the Quebec courts as to whether this
10 Cours El4mentaire de Droit Civil Frangais, 3e 6d., II (1921), p. 461.
11 [19631 B.R. 760.
12Ibid., p. 765.
13 Colin and Capitant, op. cit., p. 465.
No. 3]
NOTES
article may be broadly interpreted so as to include apparent non-
servitudes.
In favour of extending the scope of the article is Lafleur, J. in
Lecavalier V. Chaloux, who invokes Mignault:
Si le vendeur a d~clar6 que le fonds jouissait de telle servitude active, la
fausset6 de cette ddclaration donne lieu aux mgmes r~sultats que la d~cou-
verte d’une servitude passive.14
Also, Faribault states:
La r~gle posse par notre article [1519 C.C.] regoit son application si le
vendeur d’un immeuble ne ddclare pas A son acheteur qu’une servitude appa-
rente n’a pas d’existence rfelle ou qu’il existe, en r~alit6, une servitude active
ou passive qui n est pas apparente. 15
Finally, there is Baudry-Lacantinerie’s comment on the. equiva-
lent article in the French Code:
L’article 1638 ne s’occupe que des servitudes passives grevant l’immeuble
vendu; mais sa disposition doit 6tre appliqu6e aussi dans le cas oti, le ven-
deur ayant d~clar6 l’existence de servitudes actives appartenant A l’immeu-
ble vendu, ces servitudes n’existeraient pas.i 6
Against this contention are Brossard, J. in Collin v. Lemieux and
Batshaw, J. in Weinberg; the latter judge states:
Defendant’s contention that by analogy the rule of article 1519 C.C. should
be applied in both instances is not based on any persuasive authority and
cannot be accepted by the court.’7
They also invoke Mignault in support of their hypothesis.’ 8 With
respect, it is submitted that the honorable judges interpreted Mignault
wrongly in claiming that he only deals with passive servitudes in
his comments on article 1519 C.C.; they refer only to page 103 of
volume seven of the Droit Civil Canadien, whereas the passage al-
ready quoted, taken from the judgment of Lafleur, J. in Lecavalier,
is from the following page of the work, and, it is submitted, is a
more accurate summation of Mignault’s attitude towards the scope
of Article 1519.
One further significant condition applies to both articles 1517
and 1519 C.C.: the cause of the eviction must be of such importance
that the purchaser would not have bought had he known of it. The
case of Lecavatier v. Chaloux,19 where a servitude of passage, dis-
covered to be inexistent, rendering the property enclav6, provides a
14 [1965] C.S. 554 at p. 560.
15Ibid., p. 561.
10 Ibid., p. 560.
‘7 Weinberg v. Styval Realty Corporation [1962] G.S. 79, at p. 83. –
Is Loc. cit.
19 [1965] C.S. 554.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 13
good example of a case where this condition was met. It strains the
imagination, however, to conceive a fact situation whereby the exist-
ence of illegal views would provide the necessary importance to allow
the purchaser to vacate the sale (although one might suggest the
sale of a greenhouse as one such possibility). In Dame Tourangeau v.
Lerlere,20 where plaintiff asked for the resiliation of the deed of sale
on the grounds that the views from the three windows and two venti-
lators on the property were illegal, it was held that the worst that
could happen was that the neighbor would force the openings and
windows to.be closed.
Or, la preuve ne fait pas voir que la perte de jouissance des trois fen6tres
et des deux soupiraux… soit une partie de la chose vendue de telle cons6-
quence relativement au tout que la demanderesse n’eut point achet6 sans
cette partie. La demanderesse n’aurait done pas droit A la rescision de la
vente. 21
In conclusion, then, it may be stated as a general rule, which
admits of exception only in extreme factual situations, that the exist-
ence of undeclared illegal views alone does not constitute sufficient
grounds for the resiliation of the deed of sale.
20 [1963] B.R. 760.
21 Ibid., (Tremblay, C.J.), p. 766.
