91原创-based Voyce Cambie Development Ltd. and its marketers are being sued in B.C. Supreme Court for allegedly marketing and selling units as "junior one-bedroom plus flex" homes and then building studio units with no walls to separate out any bedrooms.
Plaintiffs in the case said they want their deposits back and their purchases to be rescinded.
In the notice of civil claim that Thi Kim Huong Dinh, Chien Fong Lin and Bao Nhi Phu filed last week, they allege that they expected the defendants to "act honestly and with reasonable care and skill during all material times," and that they relied on representations that the defendant listing broker, Key Marketing Inc., made.
Jai Wei You, David Hiu Tsoi and Jia Xin You are also named as defendants in the case, and plaintiffs referred to them as "the developer" in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs said they bought two units on May 8, 2021, in what was then a planned development at 5168 Cambie Street in 91原创. They put two deposits down: one for $104,985 and one for $70,990, for a total of $175,975.
On March 19, the plaintiffs Dinh and Lin assigned one of their purchases to the plaintiffs Dinh and Phu, and the developer approved that assignment the lawsuit said.
About a week later, on March 25, the plaintiffs Dinh and Lin went to the property for an orientation walkabout and saw that the units that had been marketed as junior one-bedroom units plus flex were actually studio suites, the plaintiffs allege. The plaintiffs Dihn and Phu then went to the development on April 2 and saw the same thing, they said in their lawsuit.
"The defendants failed to disclose to the plaintiffs prior to the orientation that the strata lots would not include bedrooms," the plaintiffs allege.
The plaintiffs said in their lawsuit that they then contacted their realtor who "was informed that at the time the strata units were being marketed to the plaintiffs Dinh and Lin the defendant developer intended to install walls in the strata units to create bedrooms, as per their representations, but during the course of construction they discovered this was not possible."
The plaintiffs are also seeking damages that reflect the additional, or increased cost of purchasing alternative comparable properties. They also want "consequential damages" to cover expenses the plaintiffs paid in their attempt to purchase the strata lots, such as legal costs.
They said that they ordeal has caused them to suffer "mental and emotional distress"
None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court.
None of the defendants have yet filed a response to the notice of civil claim.
