Almost all residential real estate sale agreements in Ontario contain a formaldehyde urea foam insulation (UFFI) clause. As a general rule, the clause is a guarantee that the seller never had the effect of isolating the house or condominium with UFFI and that, to the seller`s best, the property does not contain UFFI. Experts and the courts agree that uffi is no longer a health threat. This stigma is immortalized by the real estate industry and causes an unnecessary financial loss for real estate sellers. A study by Ben Lansink, published in The Canadian Appraiser in 1985, estimated that properties isolated with UFFI were sold for 35-50% below market value. Although there are no recent studies on the impact of UFFI on real estate values, many studies support the safety of UFFI. There is no justification for UFFI to be put forward as part of the purchase and sale agreement. The CMHC clearly states in an article on the website: “While UFFI should not be a cause for concern, depending on where you live in Canada, you may be asked to explain whether it is in your home or not. The OREA website adds: “A general consensus now minimizes uffI as a health problem.
However, the Canadian Real Estate Association urged its members to stay informed, not to consider UFFI as a finite subject and to maintain UFFI references in list and sales documents, and in particular in the purchase and sale agreement. On what basis is CREA based on the idea that UFFI security is not yet complete? There are no studies that link UFFI to health issues. Nothing. This pressure from CREA perpetuates a mythical and outdated stigma to the detriment of the owners. Several provinces have removed this guarantee clause from their agreements and listed the documents. In September 2002, Dorothy Gesner purchased a property in Maple Ave. In Lunenburg, N.S., by Donna Ernst for $238,000. The seller had submitted an information statement on the status of the situation, which indicated that there was fibreglass insulation in the walls and ceilings.
In addition, the agreement contained a guarantee that there was no UFFI in the house. www.elliottlawyers.com/real-estate-law/uffi-the-stigma-lives-on-2 A decision by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in May casts doubt on the need to maintain this guarantee in purchase and sale contracts across Canada today. We, [ENTER PURCHASERS NAMES], recognize that manufacturers [ENTER NAMES] remove from the purchase and sale agreement the standard clause for formaldehyde urea insulation. We were informed that it had been removed because the suppliers were not satisfied with this presentation, because they did not know whether or not there was formaldehyde urea insulation. UFFI was disgraced in the 1980s because of the resulting health problems. It was eventually banned in Canada (although it is still popular in Europe). The UFFI guarantee in a standard Ontario purchase and sale contract was designed to address concerns during this period and was transposed into the agreement with the intention of providing a level of comfort to buyers. However, many structures still have UFFI equipment on site. Currently, there is a disclosure clause in each UFFI real estate contract. However, in many cases, the owners do not realize that their building contains UFFI, which was passed on by former owners. The identification of the UFFI can avoid potential health and safety problems for the contractor and the debts of the owner and architect.
Urea-formaldehyde-foam insulation (UFFI) is now as counter-invasive as it was in December 1980, when the first temporary ban was introduced. The discussion of health issues and issues goes beyond our expertise; We can tell you, however, that there are wide differences of opinion on UFFI.