promise, or warranty, that the property has never been used for
the growth of illegal substances. I accept the sellers’ submission
that, without clear language such as the words “on completion”,
or “on closing”, to show that the parties intended that the content of the warranty could change with changing circumstances
after the date of the APS when the warranty was given, the content of the warranty does not change. The warranty that survived completion of the transaction was the warranty that was
given on the date of the APS.
 The statement in the illegal substances clause is, however,
also a representation. The representation is that, to the best of
the sellers’ knowledge and belief, the use of the property has
never been for the growth or manufacture of illegal substances.
In my view, this representation is a statement of a present
fact, to the best of the sellers’ knowledge and belief, that was
intended to be relied upon when made and one upon which the
purchaser was entitled to continue to rely, at least until closing,
while the APS was an executory contract.
 It is well settled that where a representation has been
made in the bona fide belief that it is true, and the party who has
made it discovers that it is untrue, such party cannot remain
silent. Silence which follows a representation can found an action
for misrepresentation where the silence continues after the representor learns that the representation is no longer true or was
never true: Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Leigh Instruments Ltd.
(Trustee of),  O.J. No. 1787, 1991 CarswellOnt 146 (Div. Ct.),
at paras. 14-16. This principle applies even where a representation made at the time a contract is signed becomes untrue before
or at the time of completion: Sevidal v. Chopra (1987), 64 O.R.
(2d) 169, 1987 CarswellOnt 226 (H.C.J.), at paras. 90-95.
 Had the sellers, themselves, discovered after the date of
the APS and before closing that the property had been used to
grow marijuana, they would have been required to disclose to the
purchaser that their representation, made to the best of their
knowledge and belief when the APS was made, was not true. The
purchaser’s rights are not affected by the fact that he was the one
who discovered this information and communicated it to the
sellers. Upon acquiring knowledge that the property had been
used to grow marijuana, the sellers could no longer honestly give
the representation in the illegal substances clause.
 It is settled that rescission is available in the case of an
executory contract where a material misrepresentation that was
an inducement to enter into the contract is established. Rescission may be obtained on the basis of a non-fraudulent misrepresentation where the defendant has made a false statement