Victoria, 1001 Terrace Avenue: #8 For Sale; Pemberton Holmes listing agent Robert Garry does not mention plague of leaks and legal problems affecting converted mansion

* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *


 Caveat emptor



Toll Free:

Robert Garry

Work: (250) 384-8124

To find out what your home is worth, Click Here.

Listing Details


  77 Listings Found  
8-1001 TERRACE, Rockland $499,000
Appointment to view this listing or questions?


Google Map



More Info

Address 8-1001 TERRACE Area Victoria
Bathrooms 1 Bedrooms 2
Lot Size (acres) 0.03 Lot Size (sqft) 1,110
MLS ID 235822 Postal Code V8S 3V2
Price 499,000 Sqft. Finished 1,617
Sqft. Unfinished 1 Status Active

Parking Spaces 1 Restrictions No Pets Allowed, Adult, Rental Restr
Waste Disposal Sewer/Municipal Tax Amount $CDN 2,756
Tax Year 2007 Property Title Strata, Freehold
Property Type Apartment Unit Water City/Munic.

Basement Height 7 Driveway Blacktop
Exterior Finish Stucco Fireplaces 1
Fireplace Type(s) Living Rm Foundation Concrete Poured
Fuel Gas Heating Hot Water
Kitchens 1 Roof Asphalt Shingle
Year Built 1910

Buildings in Complex 1 Floors in Building 4
Age Restriction Adult Monthly Fee Includes Management, Garbage p/u, Caretaker, Bldg Insurance
Monthly Fee 420 Units in Complex 8

Appliances F/S/W/D, Dishwasher Features Stained Glass, Sep Dine Room, French Doors

Main Level Level 1
Listing Agent: Robert Garry      

Spectacular character suite in a beautiful mansion located in Victoria's prestigious Rockland area. This suite has one of the best sea and mountain views in Victoria. Price just reduced $100,000 to reflect decreased square footage available to suite!

Room Dimensions

Level Bathroom Dining Entrance Fin. Sqft Kitchen Living Mast BR
Level 1  1pc 9x15 4x7 1,167 9x4 14x17 12x18
Level 2               
Level Studio            
Level 1               
Level 2  10x14            

Listing Brokerage(s): Pemberton Holmes Ltd.

  77 Listings Found  
New Search Back Back to Listing Today's Hotsheet

*Listing information while deemed to be correct, is not guaranteed.

For more information from

visit Victoria, 1001 Terrace Avenue

Victoria, 1001 Terrace Avenue: #8 For Sale; realtor Peter Veri does not mention leaks and legal problems

* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *

Caveat emptor

The following information about this leaky condo was extracted from the website of realtor Peter Veri, Pemberton Holmes, :


Welcome to Peter Veri services the Greater Victoria BC area. As a licensed realtor and an expert on real estate in Victoria, Peter gives his clients exceptional service whether they are buying or selling property.

Peter Veri was formerly a certified Carpenter (21 years) with Redseal Designation. He pioneered the Home inspection business in Prince Rupert and Victoria. More recently, Peter took the required training through UBC to be a Municipal Building Inspector. Peter is now a full time REALTOR® and uses his past experience for current clients.



#8 - 1001 Terrace Avenue, Victoria



Spectacular character suite in a beautiful mansion located in Victoria's prestigious Rockland area. This suite has one of the best sea and mountain views in Victoria. Price just reduced $100,000 to reflect decreased square footage available to suite!

MLS#: 235822 Contact Peter about this property
Price: $499,000  

Property Type: Condo / Townhouse

County: Victoria

Town: Rockland

Year built: 1910

Building size: 1617 sqft (finished), 1 sqft (unfinished)

Lot size: 1110 sqft

Bedrooms: 2

Bathrooms: 1

Fireplaces: 1

Read what the courts have said about this leaky condo building at 1001 Terrace Avenue, Victoria, BC: Victoria, 1001 Terrace Avenue 

UPDATE, March 30, 2008:

Peter Veri said: "Since this is not my listing, I am not aware of any problems"; "I have a very good reputation, have never sold a leaky condo, and I feel strongly about protecting my good name."

In reply, the followong email was sent to Peter Veri:

March 30, 2008


Peter Veri
Pemberton Holmes Ltd.
150-805 Cloverdale Avenue
Victoria, British Columbia
Canada V8X 2S9


Hello PV,


Thanks for your feedback.


I have updated the posting.


I also created a new posting for the information provided by the licensee who listed 8 1001 Terrace Avenue.


I realize that the Real Estate Board says buyers should not rely on the information provided by realtors such as the listing agent and yourself.


Buyers are explicitly told by Real Estate Boards not to rely on the information provided by the MLS system.


Can you tell me where we can find the updated legislation “that says basically BUYERS MUST READ THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REGARDING LATENT DEFECTS BEFORE WRITING AN OFFER. This is a HUGE protection for buyers, because if there is a problem, it now needs to be disclosed before they start thinking of what price to put on paper.”?


Can you provide me with a copy of the “THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REGARDING LATENT DEFECTS” for 1001 Terrace Avenue?


Can you provide a copy of a recent FORM B Information Certificate?


Do you commonly advertise properties as a buyer’s agent when you have not done due diligence?


Do other realtors commonly advertise properties as agents for buyers when they have not done due diligence?


Are you saying that realtors do not know what they are talking about?


Thanks for any information you can provide.


James Balderson

Quaecumque vera


 AUTOTEXTLIST s "E-mail Signature" Dr. James Balderson, Ph.D., Q.S.

COLCO: The Coalition of Leaky Condo Owners     

T 604-739-4190  F 604-739-4109


Vancouver, Pendrell Place: Realtors Burnham and Barker provided false information; requested to provide full disclosure regarding sale of 202 1819 Pendrell St.

* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *


March 19, 2008


Dick Burnham and

Lorne Barker

Royal Pacific Realty

Vancouver, BC


Dear Dick and Lorne,


Re:    Your Listing For Sale at Pendrell Place

202 1819 Pendrell Street


You will remember my recent phone call in which I requested that you provide full disclosure to potential purchasers of condominiums in Pendrell Place.


Lorne said that you were both “professional realtors” and “of course full disclosure would be provided”.


You have provided blatantly false and misleading information on your website which states:


  • $499,000
  • Property Address 202 1819 Pendrell Street, Pendrell Place, Vancouver, BC, V6G 1T3, Canada
  • Type Apartment
  • Style strata titled
  • Garage 1 car
  • Year Built 1981
  • Est. Property Tax $1263.43
  • Square Feet 855
  • Bedrooms 2
  • Bathroom 1 full
  • School District Vancouver

West End Address

202 1819 Pendrell Street, Pendrell Place, Vancouver, BC, V6G 1T3, Canada


We are proud to present this rare 'west of Denman' property. It's just 1/2 block to popular English Bay beach and the seawall walk to Stanley Park. This south facing two bedroom suite is located in a fine concrete building that has been totally rainscreened in recent years, as well as new windows and a newer roof. This bright suite has a large deck that is ideal for relaxing and enjoying your favourite book or impressing your guests at an intimate barbeque. The layout of the apartment is unique: the livingroom, dining area and kitchen have been redesigned as an'open' concept which allows for the maximum use of space,and depicts a truly West Coast lifestyle. Add to this the fact that the building is just two blocks to world famous Stanley Park and just steps to all the shops and restaurants along Denman, Robson and Davie Streets, and you have your own private oasis. Pets and rentals are welcome. We're having an OPEN HOUSE this Friday, Mar. 14th, from 10 a.m. to noon. Come by and see this beauty for may just be your dream home.


insuite laundry, fridge, stove with a separate cooktop, dishwasher, window coverings. Pets and rentals are welcome, and its just s stroll to the beach and shopping.


Elevator, south facing deck.


Pendrell Place has not been “totally rainscreened in recent years”.

One of the condominiums in the building has been uninhabitable for eight years because of leaks rot and mould caused by the failure of the building envelope.  See the CTV W5 program From Haven to Hell .

Expensive building envelope work recommended by Levelton Engineering has not been done.


There is much unresolved litigation involving the Strata Corporation, present owners and past owners.


The Financial Statements were fraudulent.


Form B Information Certificates were fraudulent.


Mr. R.S. (Rick) Dickson, President, Ascent Real Estate Management Corporation wrote: “The council approved the financial statements each month, aware that the amount stated in the CRF and the amount shown on the balance sheet in the cash account did not match”.


J. Garth Cambrey of Stratawest Management and J.P. Daem of Strataco are also fully aware of the sordid details.


A recent Information Certificate issued by the current property management firm and signed by W. D. (Bill) Blackall, Strata Manager, Century 21 Prudential Estates (RMD) Ltd. was woefully inadequate in describing the legal battles.  You can contact him directly at 604-273-1745 for more details. 


The photos you provide on your website show that 202 was recently updated with a new open-kitchen-living room.


The work inside 202 1819 Pendrell St. was done without permits.  You can check with the City of Vancouver by calling 604-873-7613. 


For more information about Pendrell Place go to: Vancouver, Pendrell Place, VR 1008, 1819 Pendrell Street .


Please provide full, complete and plain disclosure regarding the continuing fiasco at Pendrell Place.


Yours truly,



James Balderson PhD, QS's Blog

Leaky Rotten Condos and defective residential construction issues.



Vancouver, Pendrell Place, Case Study: Leaky condo for sale; MLS Information incomplete; realtor asked to provide full disclosure of contingent liabilities

* Leaks, Rot, Mould and Fraud *


February 27, 2008


Dear Mr. David Crawford aka Mr. Downtown:


Re:  MLS Information: Pendrell Place, 403 – 1819 Pendrell St., Vancouver BC


Your MLS Information is reproduced below for ease of reference.


You failed to mention the following:


>Pendrell Place is a leaky rotten condo complex.


>The present owners are facing significant contingent liabilities.


>Hundreds of thousands of dollars will be required to rehabilitate the defective common property.


>Tens of thousands of dollars will be required to rehabilitate the uninhabitable interior of Mr. Oldaker’s penthouse (Strata Lot 22).  Mr. Oldaker has been deprived of the use of his condominium at Pendrell Place because of leaks, rot and mould for eight years.


>Furthermore, depending on the results of several unresolved legal proceedings, some of the present-owners, and some of the past-owners, and perhaps others, may have to pay thousands of dollars in damages and court-ordered legal costs.


For more information about Pendrell Place: Vancouver, Pendrell Place, VR 1008, 1819 Pendrell Street


Please provide full disclosure to potential purchasers.


Yours truly,


James Balderson




Further Property Details

West End, Vancouver West

Price $429,900.00
Pendrell Place a spacious 2 bedroom suite. Located just steps to Denman street shopping, restaurants. Enjoy a stroll around English Bay and Stanley Park. This suite features 869 sq ft with newer carpets & paint 2 years ago, and new appliances. A solid concrete building. Enjoy a mountain view from your large North and West facing balcony. Great tenants who would like to stay.


REALTOR®: Crawford, David J RE/MAX Masters Realty, (604) 418-7653








Court refuses to reduce commission payable because lawyer-vendor and realtor did not have clean hands


Pierce v. Catalano



2008 BCPC 0008 

File No:









































Appearing on their own behalf:

Lawrence E. Pierce

Counsel for the Defendant:

B. Hara

Place of Hearing:

Vancouver, B.C.

Dates of Hearing:

October 31, 2007 & November 20, 2007

Date of Judgment:

January 21, 2008



[1]        Mr. Pierce (“Plaintiff”) owned a house in White Rock.  He signed a Multi-Listing Agreement with Wholesale Realty Ltd.  The listing was placed on the MLS Listing Service by Wholesale Realty Ltd.  What was somewhat unusual about the Multiple Listing Agreement, was that:

(a)        Wholesale Realty Ltd. were to be paid, as the listing broker, a flat gross commission of $10,000.00 plus GST, upon the occurrence of any of the standard conditions in the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Multiple Listing Contract;

(b)        To assist in obtaining a buyer, the listing broker was authorized to pay any co-operating broker $10,000.00 plus GST;

(c)        Wholesale Realty Ltd. would receive a flat fee of $600.00 “up front” for their anticipated assistance in effecting an eventual sale of the property.


[2]        The $600.00 was paid to Wholesale Realty Ltd., the house was listed on MLS for $975,000.00 and a perspective buyer came forth.

[3]        The prospective buyer was a Mr. Little.  He came to see the house with his friend, Mr. Leonard Lauriente.  Mr. Little made an offer to the buy the house, but that offer “collapsed”.

[4]        Approximately one month later, Mr. Lauriente was at the Art Knapp Nursery in Surrey.  The Plaintiff and his partner, Ms. Margaret Leader, by coincidence, were there also.  Ms. Leader recognized Mr. Lauriente from the previous month when he had viewed the house with Mr. Little.  She asked Mr. Lauriente if he was perhaps interested in buying the house.  She told him that the Little offer had collapsed, as had two other offers.  Mr. Lauriente said that he had recently been away on vacation in Cuba and had not wanted to get involved in purchasing any property that his friend, Mr. Little, was still interested in.  He went on to say that if Mr. Little was no longer a potential buyer, he would be interested in possibly buying the property.

[5]        Mr. Lauriente has a cousin, Mr. Catalano, who is a real estate agent.  Mr. Lauriente was in the home construction business and had, in the past, exclusively used Mr. Catalano as his realtor.  Mr. Lauriente told Ms. Leader and Mr. Pierce that “my cousin, the realtor will contact you”.  Mr. Lauriente testified that there was no discussion about not using realtors, reducing fees or commissions.  Mr. Lauriente said that he certainly would not have been able to make any commitments at all concerning any fees or commissions that Mr. Catalano would be entitled to.  He also said that he would not think about buying a property without a realtor.   Mr. Lauriente testified that he was fairly certain that Mr. Catalano had actually also written Mr. Little’s (collapsed) offer to buy the property a month before.

[6]        The Plaintiff’s testimony was different.  He said that Mr. Lauriente told him that he had a realtor friend who would write up the contract and charge him just a couple of thousand dollars.  Ms. Leader testified that no one mentioned anything about anyone reducing their fees or commissions.

[7]        I find as a fact, that there was no discussion about reducing commissions or fees and the only mention of a realtor being involved, occurred was Mr. Lauriente told the Plaintiff and Ms. Leader, that his realtor cousin would phone them to make an offer.

[8]        The next thing that happened was that Mr. Catalano drove out to the Whiterock property and presented a written offer to the Plaintiff for $950,000.00.  The Plaintiff took the offer and drove home to think about it.  The next day, the Plaintiff called Mr. Catalano and said that he was planning to make a counter-offer.  Mr. Catalano told him that his client wasn’t interested in a counter-offer, so he shouldn’t bother.  Before the call, the Plaintiff had written into the offer, a counter-offer of $960,000.00, but then scratched it out, after speaking with Mr. Catalano.  The Plaintiff then signed the Acceptance of the Offer as it was originally made and immediately faxed it back to Mr. Catalano.  The price agreed to was $950,000.00

[9]        Mr. Catalano and Mr. Pierce never discussed with one another, even the “possibility”, of reducing Mr. Catalano’s fees.  There were several opportunities to do so.  Such a discussion could have been initiated by the Plaintiff during his face to face meeting with Mr. Catalano or when he sent faxes to Mr. Catalano.  Those opportunities were available to the Plaintiff during the approximately four weeks of discussions between the Plaintiff and Mr. Catalano.

[10]       When Mr. Catalano testified, he said that Mr. Lauriente never asked him to reduce his fees or commission;  Mr. Pierce didn’t ask him to reduce his fees or commission;  Ms. Leader did not ask him;  and no one from Wholesale Realty asked him, either.  He said that he certainly never would have volunteered to reduce his fees or commission.  Mr. Catalano testified that he had written the failed original Offer to Purchase for Mr. Little;  that he had been Mr. Lauriente’s realtor on a number of previous purchases and sales.  He said that he wrote up the Offer for Mr. Lauriente and, as was the custom, he telephoned Mr. Mikulas of Wholesale Realty Ltd. to arrange for presentation of the Offer.  Mr. Mikulas told him that he could present the Offer directly to the Plaintiff and he did so.  The Plaintiff took the Offer with him overnight;  the Plaintiff, called him the next day to say he would be counter-offering at $975,000.00;  and Mr. Catalano said that he told the Plaintiff that his clients were not interested in a counter-offer.  A few moments later, the Plaintiff called him back, saying that he would be faxing back an Acceptance of the Offer at the offered price of $950,000.00.  There was no discussion about reducing Mr. Catalano’s fees during either their one face to face meeting, their telephone conversations and, nothing was written in the Acceptance that the Plaintiff faxed back to Mr. Catalano.

[11]       The sale, presumably, was to press ahead at a sale price of $950,000.00, with commissions and fees being as they were set out in the original Multi-Listing Agreement as between Wholesale Realty Ltd. and the Plaintiff.  There was a firm, final and binding contract as between the Plaintiff and Mr. Lauriente, and there was a firm, final and binding contract between the Plaintiff and Wholesale Realty Ltd.

[12]       Although Mr. Pierce was correct in saying that, as between Mr. Lauriente and himself, there was a valid and enforceable contract to sell the house to Mr. Lauriente for $950,000.00, there were also other valid and enforceable contracts that Mr. Pierce had signed. He signed a Multiple Listing Agreement with Wholesale Realty Ltd. requiring him to pay (via Wholesale Realty Ltd.) $10,000.00 plus GST to any co-operating broker.  Mr. Catalano was a “co-operating broker” and as “a co-operating broker”, he was entitled to receive a fee of $10,000.00 plus GST. 

[13]       However, it was Mr. Catalano who, after the Offer was presented, chose to muddy the waters in order to facilitate a private arrangement between himself and the buyer, Mr. Lauriente.  Instead of just privately making whatever arrangements for dividing up his $10,000.00 fee, he decided to involve the Plaintiff (Vendor) in these arrangements. Mr. Lauriente previously did some landscaping work for Mr. Catalano.  Mr. Catalano owed him $8,000.00 for the work.  Mr. Catalano decided that if he could re-structure the paperwork of the house sale, without affecting the financial outcome for the vendor (the Plaintiff), he might be able to benefit himself and Mr. Lauriente.  Mr. Catalano’s plan was to have the Contract of Purchase and Sale and the Fee Agreement, reflect a lower price for the house and a lower commission being paid for his real-estate efforts.  The results he sought were:

(a)        Mr. Catalano would end up with a T5 Income Tax Form, showing that he had earned only $2,000.00, rather than a $10,000.00 commission on the sale; and

(b)        Mr. Lauriente would be paid the $8,000 that Mr. Catalano owed him, by being able to buy the house for less.  This would enable Mr. Lauriente, should he wish to do so, to avoid reporting the $8,000.00 as income from his landscaping business.


[14]       He was an experienced realtor and although he intended the two Addendums to be read together as one Addendum, he chose (mistakenly) to fax them to the Plaintiff (Vendor) as two separate and distinct documents.  Neither Addendum made any reference to the other Addendum.  One Addendum (eventually signed by the Plaintiff) reduced Mr. Catalano’s commission to $2,000.00 and the other Addendum (never signed by the Plaintiff) set out a condition to reduce Mr. Catalano’s commission to $8,000.00 and to reduce the selling price from $950,000.00 to $942,000.00

[15]       It is true that Mr. Pierce effectively seized upon the opportunity that presented itself, to sign, accept and return only one of the Addendums (the one that reduced the commission to $2,000.00) rather than both and thereby be able to, “short change” Mr. Catalano and benefit himself, it was Mr. Catalano who opened that door.

[16]       Often, the concept of “Equity” is resorted to, in order to prevent an injustice.  On the surface of it here, there would be an injustice if Mr. Catalano were to receive only a $2,000.00 fee, when he was really entitled to a $10,000.00 fee as per the signed Multi-Listing Agreement which authorized a $10,000.00 commission to a co-operating realtor.  However, the Court has to look at Mr. Catalano’s purpose in faxing those two Addendums to the Plaintiff.  His purpose was not a proper one.  The Court also has to look at the fact that a legally enforceable Contract of Purpose and Sale was in existence:  such a contract could only be amended by an Addendum signed by both Vendor (the Plaintiff) and the Purchaser (Mr. Lauriente).  The Addendum purporting to reduce the price to $942,000.00 and the brokerage fee to $8,000.00 was not signed by both the Purchaser and the Vendor (Plaintiff).  It was only signed by the Purchaser.

[17]       The Court also has to decide whether a contract (Multiple Listing Agreement) which is signed by two parties (Wholesale Realty Ltd and the Plaintiff) can be unilaterally amended by one of the parties (the Plaintiff) by signing an Amendment with some third party (Mr. Catalano) who was not a party to the original contract?  The answer, of course, is no.  That then leaves the original Multiple Listing Agreement in place and enforceable.  The original Multiple Listing Agreement required the Plaintiff to pay (through Wholesale Realty Ltd.), $10,000.00 plus GST to the co-operating realtor, who in this case was, Mr. Catalano.

[18]       Conclusion:

(1)        The Original Multiple Listing Agreement, signed by the Plaintiff and Wholesale Realty, remained legally intact and enforceable;

(2)        The Contract of Purchase and Sale, signed by both the Plaintiff (Vendor) and Mr. Lauriente (Purchaser), remained legally intact and enforceable;

(3)        The Addendum decreasing the sale price to $942,000.00 was not signed and accepted by the Plaintiff (the Vendor) and therefore is not enforceable;

(4)        The Addendum purporting to change the fees payable to the co-operating broker, required the signatures of both signatories to the original Multiple Listing Agreement and the original parties to the Multiple Listing Agreement did not both sign the Addendum and accordingly that Addendum is not valid and enforceable.

(5)        The final result then, is that we had one party, Mr. Catalano, trying to create documentation for an improper purpose (showing less taxable income for himself and Mr. Lauriente), on the one hand and on the other hand, Mr. Pierce, trying to take advantage of an opportunity that arose, whereby he could sign one, rather than two Addendums, and thereby try to reduce the commission which he had originally agreed to pay.  Equity should not come into play here, because neither party has come with “clean hands”.

[19]       Accordingly, the case is decided purely on the law and that is, that Mr. Catalano was and is entitled to a commission of $10,000.00 plus GST.  The Plaintiff’s case against Mr. Catalano, is dismissed.

[20]       Both parties shall, in the circumstances, be responsible for their own costs.




P. R. Meyers

Provincial Court Judge

1 2 3  Next»