very sensitive to air quality, has slept in the basement of the
property on many occasions, without incident.
 I do not need to decide whether there is or is not any
problem with mould or air quality, or any other health concern
at the property. The evidence filed on these applications does
not, in any event, allow me to do so. However, given that the
illegal substances clause was expressly included in the APS by
the sellers and, separately, by the purchaser (using a clause with
identical language) I am able to conclude that the purchaser
was materially induced to enter into the APS on the strength of
the illegal substances clause, including the sellers’ representation that to the best of their knowledge and belief, the use of the
property has never been for the growth or manufacture of illegal
substances. The fact that when the property was sold on the
open market, with full disclosure of the information that it had
been used for the growth of marijuana, the purchase price was
almost $87,000 less than the purchase price that the purchaser
had agreed to in the APS, supports my conclusion that the
sellers’ representation was substantial and material.
 I therefore conclude that the purchaser is entitled to the
remedy of rescission in respect of the APS and to treat it as void
ab initio. The purchaser is entitled to the return of the deposit,
and is not liable to the sellers for damages for breach of the APS.
 The purchaser has also submit that the sellers were in a
better position to discover any former marijuana grow operation
at the property and that they had the onus of showing that they
could not have known of this fact, rather than the purchaser
having to show that the sellers knew of the former marijuana
grow operation. The purchasers cite Peterson v. Matt,  O.J.
No. 745, 2014 ONSC 896 (Div. Ct.) as authority for this proposition. The purchaser submit that the sellers made a representation as to the growth of illegal substances at the property with
reckless disregard for the truth and, therefore, the sellers cannot
meet their onus of showing that they could not possibly have
known of the defect. The sellers dispute that they had an onus to
undertake any investigations into whether the property had
formerly been used to grow marijuana or any other illegal substance. The sellers rely upon the well-established principles in
McGrath, at paras. 13-15.
 Given my conclusion that the purchaser is entitled to
rescind the APS because, with the discovery that the property
had formerly been used to grow marijuana, the material representation made in the illegal substances clause is not true, it is
not necessary for me to decide whether the sellers breached an
obligation to disclose a latent defect.