Two questions come up with the Property Disclosure Statement. Sellers ask whether they have to fill it out. Buyers ask whether they can rely on it. The answers are no, and partly. The form does less than most buyers assume and more than most sellers assume.
The form is voluntary. Disclosure is not.
BC does not prescribe a form for disclosing property information. BC Financial Services Authority, the regulator, describes the Property Disclosure Statement, or PDS, as a voluntary form the seller completes. It comes from the BC Real Estate Association and is widely used, but nothing in the rules makes a seller sign it.
The duty underneath it is separate, and there are two layers.
The first is the seller's duty at common law. A seller has to disclose a latent defect, meaning one a buyer could not find through a reasonable inspection and reasonable inquiries, if it makes the property dangerous or unfit to live in. The Court of Appeal summarized this in Nixon v. MacIver in 2016, and it is narrower than people expect. If a defect does not make the home dangerous or uninhabitable, the buyer generally carries the risk, even if the defect is hidden.
The second layer is mine. Section 59 of the Real Estate Services Rules is broader for licensees. A listing agent who knows of a material latent defect has to disclose it to the other parties, promptly and before any agreement is made. That covers the dangerous and uninhabitable cases, and also:
- a defect that would involve great expense to remedy
- a defect that makes the property unfit for a buyer's purpose, if the licensee knows that purpose
- a circumstance a local government has given notice must or should be remedied
- a lack of appropriate municipal building and other permits
If a seller tells their agent to keep quiet about one of these, the agent has to stop providing trading services on that sale. Hiring another agent does not solve it, because the same rule binds every licensee.
BCFSA's examples read like what I would ask about on any older house in Murrayville or Ocean Park: a basement that leaks when it rains, structural damage, building envelope failure, high radon, drinking water problems, and underground storage tanks. It also names electrical or gas work done without permits and inspections.
What the answers actually promise
The answers are not a warranty. In Nixon, a seller answered that the roof was six years old. After completion, the buyers learned the house had been built by setting an older cabin on a new foundation and lower level, and that the cabin's roof had never been replaced. They lost at trial and on appeal.
The court's reasoning is the part to remember. A seller must correctly and honestly disclose their actual knowledge, but that knowledge does not have to be correct. The seller believed the roof was six years old, so the answer was honest even though it was wrong. The buyers had also waived their home inspection subject, and the court said buyer beware remains very much alive in BC.
So the PDS tells a buyer what the seller says they know, not what is true about the house. Finding that out is the job of the home inspection and the rest of the work in the subject period.
The 2025 case that changed the forms
Honest but wrong is protected. Knowing and vague is not. That is the lesson of Sewell v. Abadian, decided by the Court of Appeal on May 20, 2025.
The seller had bought the house with a disclosure statement from the prior owner, which said an area at the back had been enclosed without a permit. At resale, the seller drew a diagonal line through the new form, filled in none of the boxes, and wrote that the property was tenanted and the owner had never occupied it. The form was made part of the contract. The buyer later found the unpermitted addition and refused to close.
The trial judge said a crossed out form made no representation at all. The Court of Appeal disagreed. On that evidence, which included the seller's past work as a licensee, the form as a whole represented that the seller did not know of any unpermitted additions. That was a misrepresentation. The buyer was awarded the $300,000 first deposit, and the seller's claim for the $200,000 second deposit was dismissed.
BCFSA's advisory of July 24, 2025 sets out what followed. The association updated the PDS to spell out the risks of blank or partly completed forms, and added a disclaimer that disclosures are accurate as of their date and may not reflect current conditions. It also created a new form, the Property No Disclosure Statement, for a seller who chooses to say nothing.
If you are selling
Answer accurately and to the best of your knowledge. "Do not know" is a proper answer only when it is true. A few situations deserve extra care:
- You never lived there. A rental or an estate home can leave you with few answers. That is fine, but anything you did learn still counts, including what the disclosure statement from your own purchase told you.
- You know of a problem. Telling your agent is not the same as telling the buyer. Disclose it in writing, in a document separate from the contract. Most sellers use the PDS. Once you have done that, your agent does not have to repeat it.
- A deal collapsed. If your agent learns of a material latent defect from a buyer's inspection on a failed sale, BCFSA's guidelines say it must be disclosed to the next buyers too.
- Something changes. The form quoted in Sewell promised that important changes made known to the seller would be disclosed before closing.
The no disclosure form is an option, not a shield. BCFSA warns it may expose you to litigation if defects surface that you knew about and did not disclose, and it can make the home harder to sell. It does not change your agent's duty either. If you are unsure whether something has to be disclosed, ask a lawyer before you list.
If you are buying
BCFSA says buyers are best protected by making a completed PDS, not the no disclosure form, a condition of the offer. It also says to treat a no disclosure form as an indication of a defect that needs more due diligence, and to check whether your lender will accept it for financing.
Then read the form like this:
- Make sure it is part of the contract. The court in Nixon said information in a statement incorporated into the contract may be a representation you can rely on.
- Check the date. The answers speak as of the date on the form. If the home has been listed for months, ask whether anything has changed.
- Follow every "do not know". Each one is a question for your inspector, the municipality, or the seller through the agents.
- Check permits yourself. A finished basement or an enclosed addition can look perfectly normal. Ask the municipality what it has on file before you remove subjects. For a condo or townhouse, add the strata documents, as I explain in the post on White Rock condos.
If you find a defect after completion, BCFSA's advice is to get independent legal advice. If you believe a licensee failed to make a required disclosure, you can contact BCFSA or file a complaint.
What does not have to be disclosed
Stigmas are not material latent defects. BCFSA's examples include a death on the property, a past robbery, or a story that the home is haunted. An agent acting for a seller can share that kind of information only with the seller's authority. If it would change your mind about a home, tell your agent at the start so the right questions get asked.
Where I come in
I would rather have this conversation before a sign goes up in Langley, South Surrey or White Rock than after an inspection finds something. Selling, I will go through the form and what I am required to disclose. Buying, I will go through the seller's answers with you and flag what needs following up. None of this is legal advice. A lawyer should answer any question about your own contract or liability.
Sources
Real Estate Services Rules, section 59, from bclaws.gov.bc.ca. BC Financial Services Authority, from bcfsa.ca: Material Latent Defects consumer page, Material Latent Defects Guidelines, real estate transaction FAQs, and Advisory 25-026. Court of Appeal for British Columbia, from bccourts.ca: Nixon v. MacIver, 2016 BCCA 8, and Sewell v. Abadian, 2025 BCCA 158. The current form is available to licensees only, so form wording here is as quoted in Sewell and summarized by BCFSA. Checked November 4, 2026.