In Niagara Falls and I’m sure throughout Canada, Realtors are selling homes that have been used as grow-ops. The buyer is not aware because the Realtor is not telling him.

Nor is the lender aware, since money for the mortgage would not be available if they were. For insured mortgages, CMHC and GE will not insure homes that were previously used for grow-ops even if they have been remediated. So, the only way to get financing is not to tell the buyer or the bank. Problem solved.

It’s one teeny little lie, except it is fraud. If found out, the Realtor could be charged. He or she could possibly not only lose their license, they risk being sued and who knows what else?

I spoke to a Realtor from one of the largest franchises and he asked me, “What should I do?”  I advised him to either cancel the listing or declare the home was previously a grow-op. I did not follow up as I am aware of many homes in the same circumstances that have been sold and sold again. I think the answer is, if a home has been remediated, CMHC and GE should insure the mortgage lender. In Niagara Falls, the fire department checks the air quality and declares that the home passes their test.

It’s time the government authorized CMHC and GE to insure these homes if they have been remediated and passed whatever requirements are necessary, thereby taking the risk off the bank.

I have not seen anything written about this problem. Sooner or later, a buyer will discover he has purchased a home that has been used as a grow-op and he will sue everyone involved.

Charles Wood

Broker of Record

Sunshine Realty Corp., Brokerage

Niagara Falls, Ont.




  1. Lots of good discussions. Although we are digressing a bit here. This isn’t about whether something should be legalized or not, it is about our professionals disclosing the FACTS of a property. Rumour, speculation, heresay, etc. As a professional, I do not repeat rumours, speculation, heresay. They’re unsubstantiated. Of course if I know for a fact that a property has had a grow op, I would disclose. I am always a bit suspect when showing a property and the potential buyers starts going on about what they heard, unless I can back it up with facts, then I am not going to turn around and ‘disclose’ what they said.
    But arising from this issue is the fact that we are required to be an additional force of 100,000 police men/women. If we come across a listing that has any number of potential law breaking elements, do we report them all? IE. Domestic violence. Potential mafia. Potential child abuse. So forth. How far do we go and put our lives in jeopardy by reporting any number of potentially illegal or suspected illegal activities?

  2. In B.C. we have been dealing with grow-ops for many, many years. A past grow-op has to be disclosed as such for perpetuity even if the home has gone through a complete remediation. Suspicion of one is an entirely different matter. You can contact the local RCMP who will verify for you whether or not any calls have been made to the property in question. Remediation is rigorous and occupancy permits are pulled until the home is re-inspected an approved. I, however, do think that there should be at least a provinicial grading system as there is a huge difference between a house that had 8 plants and one that had 200. Currently they are all tarred and feathered with the same brush. Also, if someone grew in the garage or barn or shop for example then the house itself is still listed as a grow-op as the stigma is attached to the property rather then the actual building that was grown in. The big banks are no longer financing grow-ops from what I understand. In their wording, once a grow-op always a grow-op. Financing has to been obtained through credit unions and trust companines. CMHC will insure if remediation proved sucessful which includes air quality reports, etc. This a big, big problem that for too long has really been going unaddressed. CREA how about lending a hand here??

  3. I just acted on behalf of buyers who were purchasing a home that was disclosed as a grow op on the listing cut. We ran into road block after road block. We found a lender (credit union) who would finance the purchase and Genworth would insure. They required 3 things from the Seller (which was a bank foreclosure ). 1. proof of remediation and any air quality reports 2. written proof from the utility company that power had safely been reconnected to the property (power was on we just needed something in writing from utility company; and 3. written confirmation from the city that a re-occupancy permit had been granted. The bank provided the remediation paper work and refused to provide the rest. A simple phone call from them to City hall and to the power company requesting that information would have been all it took to satisfy the mortgage financing clause. We gave them two extensions (a week each) to provide it. They still refused, for what reason, I don’t know. You’d think they’d jump at the chance to get that paperwork and get that grow op off of their hands. I got the buyers out of the deal and frankly, I was relieved. They are now happily in another home they closed on last week. So it is possible to disclose a grow op and get the financing done through Genworth if the sellers are willing to get the info.

  4. The comments above regarding CMHC insurance for remediated grow ops are incorrect. CMHC will require that the lender disclose the history of the property by the lender and require the lender to obtain proof that the remediation was done by a reputable company, however to say that such properties will not be insured as a blanket statement of CMHC policy is incorrect.
    Comments of this nature, presented as fact, should be verified before publication.

    • You nailed this, John Hughes. I like this publication but they erred on this one without checking the facts. I confirmed that CMHC will ensure remediated homes but they do so on a home by home basis. Other lenders than Credit Unions will also lend, but even with conventional financing, CMHC insurance is required.

  5. My question here is “If a previous grow house was only active for a few months and investigation resulted in no mould, mildew or any signs of grow house typical damages, why wouldn’t GE or CMHC be able to approve a mortgage for secondary owners nine years after the fact? ” I would hope that a current air quality report and a “no symptom” nine years of family use and enjoyment should be enough to dispel any stigma and of course being fully disclosed here. Any one with similar situation? Thx

    • We live in BC, not sure where you are as it seems each province has its own set of rules.
      Situation is similar. Short term grow op, completely remediated (electrical, air quality, insulation etc), and have lived in the house for 6 years. We have our home for sale and obviously naive on my part but didn’t think it was such a big deal. I was wrong. All grow op house are being lumped together regardless of circumstances.
      As you posted this 8 months ago and we’re only now in the throes of this ludicrous situation, I wonder if you might have some information that would be useful to us? I know there are thousands of people in the same situation and whether anyone has thought about creating an advocacy group and lobbying for changes to these blanketing rules?

      • Yes, Sue, we too are in this situation currently in B.C. Would love if someone could chime in with information that could be helpful. If banks could look at grow ops without that general brush stroke, looking at each one, ie. a 2 plant operation for 6 months verses a 200 plant operation for 6 years, makes a HUGE difference.

  6. Until the provincial governments get off their behinds and set strict specific minimum standards for remediating former Marijuana grow ops those building must be destroyed. In Calgary we have instances where former grow ops have been “professionally remediated” including being treated with dry ice and the mold had come back and caused illnesses in unsuspecting families. There are others that have been “remediated” by individuals that have simply removed drywall and insulation and sprayed the interior with bleach then resold the property as “remediated”. It’s not CREA or the local boards that have to set standards, our governments have to get with the program. The health issues are significant.

  7. The rules are really blatantly unfair as they don’t seek to provide any sanity – but rather further the aims of prohibitionists – that is to create more problem that they can then “save us from” with even more rules. Lets be perfectly clear – its not grow ups that must be disclosed – just marijuana grow-ops. Someone could make the worst mess of a home growing tomatoes – no disclosure needed.

    Conversely someone could use CSA approved portable grow units designed to contain the growth of 2 or 3 plants for personal use. No evidence would ever be apparent. Totally insulated and cut off from outside environment – and that needs disclosure.

    Clearly a solution like Colorado – where individuals can grow up to 6 plants legally would work. At that point municipal governments can step in and regulate. And perhaps permit only CSA approved grow units as described above.

    Leaving aside the loss of civil liberties and almost half a million criminal records since Harper took office – we have a law that creates havoc in our industry as the rules are enforced capriciously and arbitrarily and like prohibition itself – do not make sense and do not deliver what is promised – equity to buyers and sellers.

    I urge Realtors to Vote for the Liberals and Justin Trudeau next election to make this problem go away as Trudeau is on record as favoring legalization and regulation once in office. . With the Conservatives we will get the status quo. Mulcair and the NDP offer to decriminalize and leave the mob in charge of distribution.

    Only Trudeau offers to solve our problem and deliver marijuana profits to health care and education instead of fast cars for growers.

    Remember Ronald Reagans quote regarding the 9 most dangerous words in the English language ” I’m with the government and I’m here to help”. Nowhere do these words ring truer than with marijuana prohibition.

    • Chuck:
      What say you to the numerous reports/studies put forth by/conducted by psychiatrists/psychologists and the medical profession, respectively, that conclude that the use of marijuana during teen-age years causes brain damage…long term…regarding memory loss, reasoning ability, lowered I.Q. and motivation? It has also been found that marijuana use amongst teens in some cases contributes to the development of depression, and thereafter to schizophrenia.
      One need only listen to Justin Trudeau try to focus on what comes out of his mouth between incessant “aaahhhs” every time he stuffs his foot in that mouth born with six silver spoons therein (once he routinely goes off script) to connect the weed-use-outcome dots re his admitted use of the drug. He can’t even remember what his handlers have told him to say in answer to common questions of the day.
      Marijuana is a mind altering drug; therefore it is not in one’s best interests to use it for entertainment purposes. It is also a stepping stone to harder stuff once the buzz becomes not enough for the zoned-outers.
      We evolved our intelligence over the millennia by drinking water, eating non-hallucinogenic organic materials, and, last but not least, by breathing non-smoke-filled foggy-mind-inducing air. Other than being legally prescribed for medicinal use, marijuana is nothing more than another form of goofy-behaviour-inducing poison…dude. Like…hey man…don’t listen to the guv’ment…listen to yer docter dude…assuming he/she is not a pot head like many Liberal politicians, wannabe Liberal politicians, Liberal judges, Liberal lawyers, Liberal university professors and all ’round Liberal stoned-out permanently uber-calm n’er-do-wells. There is a reason why it is a criminal offence to drive while under the influence of pot; the driver is impaired…just like Justin. Canada’s next P.M.? Yup…Canada’s Pot Meister, voted in by a bunch of “anything-goes-man” pot heads.
      BTW, I tried it once at age twenty-two after I was bugged about it by friends we had up to our cottage for the weekend. I could not wait for the so-called buzz to wear off. Why on earth would someone want to wilfully be in an altered state of mind, to be impaired, to be out-of-control, to be in a state of irresponsibility, whereby as Freud described it, the super ego has left the room and the inward-looking childish ego is all that remains? Maybe users can’t deal with reality very well? You tell me.

      • I say that even in this first past the post system – the will of the majority on this issue must ultimately be respected – not withstanding that legalization proponents are divided amongst various political parties on other issues. In US ballot initiative states proponents can find common ground in ballot initiatives such as in Washington and Colorado and in November – when 3 more states will legalize.

        Also as one psychologist has said – a criminal record or even a short stay in jail can ruin a lot more kids than a toke.

        Also – the latest results from Colorado and Washington are that teen drug use has gone down since legalization. I believe due to marketing. Legal purveyors must ask for id just like licensed alcohol distributors – and as an added bonus – they wont try and sell you crack.

        And as a person who has an exemption – I can tell you that it it not hallucinogenic. If degrees intoxication can be be put in terms of automobiles – marijuana is and Austin Mini and alcohol intoxication would rate as ten ton tractor.

        The criminal law cannot be used to describe every second British Colombian as an unapprehended criminal ( half of BC voters have smoked marijuana) It was never meant for this purpose.

        The other factor is that Marijuana is used by regularly by 1 out of 10 Canadians – about 3 million. Once marijuana is legalized and regulated – the War on Drugs which threatens our civil liberties is delegated to a minor side show as we are then left with about 70,000 hard drug users who can be treated. Medically.

        The War on Drugs which is really a war on people has as its foundation marijuana prohibition and is not likely to get a whole lot of funding once this change has been made.

        Statistically speaking your child is in greater danger of being hurt in a wrong address no knock drug raid whilst being assaulted with a flash stun grenade by a drug war swat team right before your dog is shot and killed than ever being hurt by marijuana.

        For example see this link for such a circumstance

        • Chuck:
          You are a user, albeit, unfortunately for a medical reason, and thus, your views are justifiably, but nevertheless, unabashedly prejudicial. You also seem to have a very biased view of the proponents of law and order, not to mention the front line officers, regarding them as the peoples’ enemy. You come across as hating the police force, and any laws that do not permit us to do whatever the hell we want to do. You are essentially an anarchist, are you not?
          The first-pass-the-post electoral system usually does ‘not’ reflect the views of the majority of voters. Just last June here in Ontario we wound up with a ‘majority’ Liberal government that received less than 50% (38%) of the popular vote, meaning that the majority (62%)voted for everyone else ‘but’ the Liberals.
          We often-ignorant-humans have a penchant for getting involved with people, situations, drugs etc. that offer short-term enjoyment at the cost of long-term difficulties and pain (physical, mental and psychological in nature), and drug use is often the catalyst for such behaviours. Pot is the stepping-stone toward a downward spiral of drug addiction for youngsters, simply because ‘everyone else’ (at least amongst their undeveloped-brain-comrades who can’t determine the consequences of their present behaviours) is doing it. As is usually the case whilst monitoring the stock market, when the public jumps on board a stock that is soaring, it’s time for the forward thinkers to bail out, because the ignorant “living-in-the-moment” investors don’t know what the hell they are doing in the first place. Sheep are not known for their intellectual abilities to see the folly of their actions when all of the other sheep are happily, gullibly, naively, heading for disaster.
          This article is about grow-Ops. There would be no problem with illegal residential Grow-Ops if there was not a black market for a drug that appeals to the young, ignorant and naïve amongst us.
          You are right though, when you say that the war is against people, and those people are currently known as criminals. If the laws are changed, then so be it…toke away in your buzzed-out smoke-filled haze. I really don’t care what others do with their lives on an individual basis, but when the drug problem escalates to the point that our health care system implodes under its own weight due to never-ending long-term treatments for drug abusers and all of the fallout that emanates from that life-style, then there might be a backlash from the actual majority…taxpayers whose pockets have to be picked to pay for that nonsense…unless they too have become layabout potheads…that ever-increasing legion of takers who milk the ever-decreasing makers.

          • Hello

            I have no bias against law enforcement at all – in fact police officers are endangered by prohibition as well. And should not be. We would be far better off – however if police were concentrating on crimes against persons and property.

            You may want to check out a group called “Law Enforcement Against Prohibition” for a factual history and study of what prohibition really has been from the perspective of police officers. . Their website it here.


            Its a large group of police officers and law enforcement professionals who bear personal witness to the wasteful futility and harms of our current drug policies.

          • Hi Chuck:
            You say: “We would be far better off – however if police were concentrating on crimes against persons and property.”
            But surely you are aware that the majority of crimes against persons and property are committed by drug abusers/addicts who will do anything to get the wherewithal for their next fix.
            Be assured that quite a number of front line police officers, lawyers and legislators also use weed…for other than medicinal purposes. Thus, they have a personal agenda separate and apart from the perceived public-good argument.

          • Lets stick with marijuana for now. We cant solve all issues at once. The road ahead starts with one step and a clear majority want marijuana law reform. Marijuana users do not commit petty theft as marijuana is relatively cheap even on the black market.

            I am booking off now – see you all in a year at the polls where I will be voting for Justin Trudeau and an end to marijuana prohibition and and end to our grow up problems.

            I have to go sell some real estate now. Thank you all for your time and thanks to the original poster for making this discussion possible.

          • Hi again Chuck:
            Re your statement “…a clear majority want marijuana law reform.” The clear majority also wants free this and free that, but somebody has to pay for all that the clear majority wants. I did not say that marijuana users commit petty thefts, but once they devolve into becoming harder drug users/addicts, which drugs are much more expensive but too easy to obtain, then the crimes begin. It’s the old horse before the cart thing. First the weed; then the hard stuff; then the addiction; then the spiral into hell; then the crime. The foregoing sentence reflects the perfectly human linear way of thinking and thereafter seeing the truth. It is also the foundation that legal prosecutions and defences are predicated upon.
            I am sure that Justin will garner a considerable number of votes next year (mostly females and legalized marijuana use-for-fun advocates). So far he is a single issue candidate…the legalization of pot. We shall have to wait to see if there is anything else within that cranium worth hearing about aside from what his back room hacks are trying to get him to memorize. So far Justin is all style and no substance. He is far removed from the real world. If he drops the acting there may be nothing of substance there. We shall see.
            Good luck with your business.

          • While Justin Trudeau may be a quick fix (no pun intended) for those seeking to gain access to pot without breaking the law REALTORS will face even stiffer problems when selling a home that was used to grow marijuana as even more stringent home inspections would be needed since Google Searches would no longer be a good information source.

            As to Pot the Trudeau mirage of a quick fix is clearly coming from yet another person ill equipped to lead our nation. While Trudeau’s stated preference towards legalization is the only responsible path for a democracy where it’s constituents demand using a substance no longer carries legal ramifications, such a process is complicated and requires massive unhindered insight to be completed in the best interests of the population at large.

            Today’s Pot is not the 1970’s version everyone remembers. While in 1975 a teenage boy may have been able to smoke up with little real harm from a medical standpoint being a probable outcome, today’s Pot is not so gentle on the teenage brain.

            Chuck B I hope agrees Trudeau must acknowledge legalized use cannot be given to those voters under 21, where their brains are still developing and this must be clearly communicated by Trudeau so all Canadians can trust he is not simply looking to fool kids into voting for him, no matter the cost.

            THC and CBD must be as regulated in commercially produced marijuana as alcohol content is limited in beer, wine and spirits. No democracy allows unregulated moonshine to be sold in it’s stores and all regulate % alcohol or proof, so both large teams of medical and mental health experts who have studied the effects of marijuana must form any legalization team to determine acceptable THC and CBD levels.

            Pot is in fact a leading cause of teen theft, truancy and unsocial behaviour, so to comment that it causes no harm to society, is a self centered opinion that forgoes the realities of youth today. I mentor kids weekly in the 12-14 year age group and the Pot topic is front and center all the time, even though this mentorship comes through youth sport.

            Pot is now common from grade 6 an on in larger urban areas and is sold by small drug dealers who obtain their product from the BIG BOYS who do have guns. The whimsical image of the BC pot grower growing in it in the rain forest and then selling to only urban professionals is the biggest myth the real criminals want you to believe. So again simply address reality.

            My personal opinion on this topic is irrelevant but that of my now 23, 21, 20 and 18 year old are. The young man in my community whose funeral my kids attended this week may have mattered if the probable effects of pot on the teenage brain had been responsibly addressed by our society, when the legalization topic is addressed or worse the topic of decriminalization is hoped for by kids so their access would be guaranteed. I can assure you my kids see things far differently today than they did when they were 16.

            The homes sold in my community to unknowing buyers where a simple question to a neighbour was never asked by the buyers reps must be addressed. Incompetence cannot be allowed.

            While I would never suggest increasing the drinking age to 21, unfortunately the smoking up age should never go below that required age and any politician who makes that possible in any way is a criminal and child abuser in my opinion.

  8. My university-aged sons would probably chime in and say one more reason to legalize and regulate marijuana cultivation and use, so that nightmares like illegal grow-ops become a thing of the past! Tax the sale of cannabis products and use part of the proceeds for substance abuse treatment (like alcohol or gambling do), part to fund the regulation, and the rest to augment the tax base. (There’s hope for Ontario ! ;) Sometimes one needs to look at problems from different angles. Just throwing it out there and – no – I don’t smoke weed et al.

  9. A number of years ago (circa 2006) when I was working as a Real Estate Appraiser in Peterborough and surrounding areas, I attended a seminar promoted by the Appraisal Institute of Canada on Grow Ops. The seminar presenter was the Fire Chief for the City of Niagara Falls. He spoke to the problems of being able to actually fully/properly remediate a house that has been used as a Grow Op, stating that it is almost impossible for local municipalities to pull that procedure off because they do not have the expertise to examine the house thus allowing for a proper remediation; they can only do the obvious, patent cosmetic stuff. It is the latent stuff that is the problem. In effect, a house almost needs to be torn apart in order to determine if mold is growing behind drywall/brick veneer/siding etc. on wooden structural members to such an extent as to be a danger to future occupants due to bad air quality and/or potential structural failure due to wood rot. I offered my opinion that all of these former Grow Ops ought to be torn down and that the owners (if found to be unaware of what was going on due to renters’ behaviours) ought to be reimbursed by their insurers. The Fire Chief agreed, but doubted that that would ever happen. He was at the time advocating for complete tear-downs of affected structures.
    Bottom line: Look for the earmarks of a former Grow Op (large circular patched holes in the roof sheathing when viewed from the attic side; speak to the neighbours and ask questions; ask why the drywall/trim etc. appears to be newer than the house itself; check out the history of the house at the municipal level, even if only an “unofficial” answer can be given. Don’t take anyone’s word for granted who has a vested interest in selling the property. Suspicious? Walk away.
    Fact: the Fire Chief stated that there are more Grow Ops in Ontario than throughout all of the United States (likely due to our lax laws against pot possession etc.: my supposition).

  10. I would like to suggest that either TREB or CREA should start a lobby group for CMHC & GE to insure these homes if they have been remediated and approved by the local authorities such as Fire, Building & Health departments.

  11. In Manitoba, it is Mandatory to Disclose Grow Ops. My Biggest Concern is the Legal Grow Op!! The houses that the owners are allowed to Grow for Medicinal Reasons, those will Never be Busted as Grow Ops but have the same potential as “damaged goods” as an illegal Grow Op! Also, I just sold one that the House was listed as a Grow Op but the Plants, which were being grown “Naturally” in pots, not Hydroponically, were ALL in the Detached Garage, not the house but yet the House was branded as the Grow Op. There is still much needed to be done with this problem that will not be going away soon …

  12. If the home has been remediated and it passes all tests including air quality then it should be acceptable and no further comments should be necessary. I once sold a home where they kept chickens in the basement. (Some cultures keep goats in the basement). After the sellers cleaned it up, I didn’t feel compelled to divulge this information. What next is going to be included on the PDS?
    Perhaps check if the house was ever used as a: house of ill repute?
    A gambling den? A dog kennel? A drug ‘shootup’ site? A bootleggers place of business, etc. Where is all this going?

  13. I am shocked this non-disclosure is going on in other parts of the country. In the Lower Mainland BC and Vancouver, I find grow-ops are nearly always disclosed. Most of us put it right in the listing remarks, and then it’s on the Property Disclosure Statement. The only exception of course is if a client is not honest and the Realtor has no idea, but that is rare too in my 10yrs experience. Many banks won’t finance a grow-op, but a good mortgage broker keeps a list of those who do. Shame on any Realtor who tries to hide this.

  14. Want to eliminate grow-ops from the shadows of real estate? The only proactive solution is to legalize marijuana and regulate it, thus eliminating the black market which currently makes covert, unlicensed grow-ops profitable.

  15. In Manitoba we do disclose, so not all realtors across the country are participating in fraudulent behaviour.
    I also have been lead to understand that remediation may be a misnomer. There are many that believe problems are going to surface down the road and that remediation only addresses the problem short term. There is also the fact that these homes have been associated with criminal behaviour. How do you remediate there? I am a believer they are stigmatized property and should remain so. Have the vendor agree to disclosure or pass on the listing. Bad business is always bad business in my opinion.

    • The stigmatization argument has become pretty moot. Why a stigma if 3 marijuana plants have been growing in a closet. But no stigma if If a house has only had marijuana smoked or sold in it. In BC half of the population has smoked marijuana so the whole stigmatization argument beings to fall apart.

      Furthermore …. tobacco. There is smell you can never get out of a house. Worse than “Raid” you can get rid of it with an ionizer for a while – but the smell will come back eventually. Marijuana smell will eventually be gone – but tobacco – never. Its the nicotine in it that smells forever. Makes me wretch. I showed a 5 year old mobile home in excellent condition last month that has been vacant and for sale for 3 years and no wonder. Needs a hazmat team to get rid of he odour.

      Tobacco odour should be a latent defect.

      • Chuck:
        By your own words the stigmatization argument only falls apart on the left coast wherein half of the population are pot heads. However, what will always fall apart is the reasoning to buy former grow-ops by the other half of the population. Tobacco smokers and pot heads are losers, starting the habit young via stupidity, ignorance or naivety (not necessarily in that order) who thence sometimes try to quit once they realize the folly of their youth. Once addicted, brain power, if one has much left at all, cannot overcome the body’s constant need for the next fix. Both tobacco and pot users become junkies, and their houses become junkers. Imagine breathing in carcinogenic mind numbing brain cell-destroying smoke from any source for kicks…or just to look and/or to be cool! “To be, or not to be”; that is a question that stupidity cannot answer. Like Jeff Foxworthy says, “Yu can’t fix stupid.”.
        Weak minds beget weak thinking patterns. Weak thinking patterns beget weak voters. Weak voters beget weak politicians. Weak politicians beget weak laws. Weak laws beget weak societies. Weak societies beget weak moral codes. Weak moral codes beget weak citizenry. Weak citizenry begets a weak country. A weak country begets a weak response to what is not good for it and its citizens over the long run. If half of the population jumps off a bridge, does that make that behaviour acceptable? Party on latent-defect- dude.

        • Chuck
          They are not smoking marijuana in grow ops. They are dosing it with heavy chemicals and that is the problem. Mold and mildew are minor compared to what is in these places. And no one here is talking about stigmatizing the guy with 3 plants nor seldom are the police busting anyone for it.
          Have you ever seen the aftermath of a full blown grow op? Been in a a hazmat suit to do so? This is far from a small issue and I personally and professionally would not want my clients living in one and exposing them to the huge potential health problems.
          Most professionals see this for the real issue this is.

  16. REALTORS do you even know what the mortgage factor is today for a CMHC approved financing clause? Can you quote it right now?
    REALTORS do you know what happened to many registrants when UFFI came under intense public scrutiny at the last market correction? (note there was no RECO back then)
    REALTORS do you even sit down with your buyers and review the terms and conditions of a standard mortgage document anymore? Do you know what it says about grow ops or other non-disclosures?
    REALTORS do you even check out all previous listing information for a property over it’s lifetime on the MLS and give a copy of each former MLS listing to your clients BEFORE they put an offer on a home?
    Mr Wood works in one of Canada’s most challenging real estate markets where early warnings on consumer behaviour have consistently been forewarned by monitoring issues first brought forward in his trading area. So once again you are being warned.

    If any Appraisers are reading this let them comment on valuation issues attached to a former and even remediated Grow-Op. Then you will see the risk you need to be worried about.

  17. Yes this has to be dealt with. When it comes to a marijuana grow op the same mold and mildew issues could come from growing tomatoes or other vegetables indoor. It comes down to ventilation. There should be some kind of guideline inspection that a previous grow op has to go through. Examples would be electrical inspection, air quality inspection, and building inspection. If passed of course it should still be disclosed but the home could be deemed safe for occupancy.

Leave a Reply