似乎还是进行时sign.
http://www.bcbay.com/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=116676&extra=page=1
万圣节那天，三个孩子的单亲妈妈Ella 施打扮成巫婆，在Minto Place的办公楼前举牌抗议。
“MINTO还我$66,306元定金。”
“MINTO return my deposit $66,306”.
在万圣节之夜，三个孩子的单亲妈妈Ella 施打扮成邪恶的巫婆，站在Minto Place的办公楼外，手举要求还定金的标语牌，抗议资产数十亿元的住宅建筑公司Minto Communities Inc. 。她声称自己在被误导的情况下签订购买渥太华市一套豪宅的购房合同。
On Halloween night, Ella Shi, a single mother of three dressed in a wicked witch costume, stood outside Minto Place offices, holding a sign with the above words, in protest against Minto Communities Inc. – a multibillion dollar home building company that allegedly misled her into signing a purchase agreement for a luxury home in Ottawa.
是不是消费者在签订合同时忽略合同细节，然后发现合同不如她意就去谴责建筑商的投诉？或是消费者在签署具有法律约束力的文件时对其法律责任一无所知？或是这是一起销售员在购房合同外所做口头承诺的案例？
Did Shi sign a contract without carefully reviewing the details and then blame the builder when the agreement did not turn out the way she expected? Is this one of those cases where the consumer is ignorant of their legal obligations when signing a legally binding document, or one of the cases where salesperson makes verbal promises which are not included in the purchase agreement？
在许多消费者的投诉中，即使是推销员的口中陈述可能有所出入，但他们所签署的合同文件往往都准确说明了所购买的产品和服务。但是Ella 施的经历却有所不同，她指控建筑商没有交付给她一套她在合同中同意购买的住宅。
While in many consumers’ complaints, the documents they signed describe precisely what they purchased — even though they might have been verbally presented with different products or services — Shi’s story is different, as she alleged that the builder did not deliver her the home that she had agreed to purchase in the contract.
施表示：“我有证据证明Minto误导我签订合同，购买他们无法交付的住宅.。”
“I have evidence showing that Minto misled me into signing an agreement that they were unable to deliver,” says Shi.
施于80年代以访问学者身份来到加拿大，后作为一名职业妇女她曾在包括蒙特利尔、北京和新加坡等世界许多城市生活居住。2010年，施决定和三个孩子定居在渥太华。
Shi, who first came to Canada in the late 1980s as a visiting professor, has since traveled to many places in the world as a career woman and lived in several cities and countries – including Montreal, Beijing and Singapore. In 2010, Shi decided to settle down in Ottawa with her three children.
施是否象很多选择定居加国的移民一样，选择定居加拿大，是因为她喜欢加拿大这个国家，相信加国企业都遵守商业道德，并会把消费者的最佳利益至于首位？
Did Shi, like many immigrants to Canada, choose to live in Canada because she likes Canada as a country and believes that all the businesses here are ethical and have the consumers’ best interests in mind?
Ella 施在今年从渥太华地区最大的建筑商之一Minto手中购买位于渥太华东端富有的Orleans郊区的一套豪宅，经历了一场她从未经历过的购房风波。如果说施曾对加国企业报有信任感，这种信任感则很难经得起这场购房风波的考验。
If Shi had ever had that belief, she would hold on to it until she was hit by a home purchasing saga, when she purchased her first home this year from Minto – one of the biggest builders in Ottawa region, in a well established suburb of Orleans, the east end of Ottawa.
风波骤起
Ordeal starts
在2011年2月，Minto办公大楼外张贴的一张写有“激励生活”的巨幅海报引起了Ella 施的注意，她不由得走进了Minto Orleans的售楼中心。
In Feb. 2011, a giant sign “Be Inspired” posted outside of Minto’s office caught Shi’s attention and led her to the Minto sales centre in Orleans.
施说：“灾难就从这一刻降临了”。
“That was when my ordeal started,” says Shi.
Ella 施走进售楼处后，立即被销售员所介绍的位于Lot 6的Yorkville C户型的楼层平面图吸引，这种户型面积为3331平方英尺，其中厨房标注的尺寸为“11英尺 x 10.17英尺”。
According to Shi, while inside the sales office, her attention was directed by the salesperson to the floor plan of the Yorkville C model on Lot 6, with an area of 3331 square feet, and a kitchen measuring 11’ x 10’2.
对于许多家庭来说，厨房是住宅的最重要组成部分，也这是家庭活动集中的地方。而厨房对热爱烹调，喜欢亲手为孩子制作美食的Ella 施来说就重显重要。
The kitchen, for many home owners, is the heart of the home as it is the place where many family activities are held. The kitchen is even more important to Shi, a mother who loves to cook and enjoys preparing her kids’ meals by herself.
施表示，当时Yorkville C户型的厨房看起来足够大，足以满足她的需求并能够让她在此充分施展厨艺。
It seemed to Shi that the kitchen in the Yorkville C model would be big enough to meet her needs and allow her to hone her cooking skills.
施表示：“销售员极力推销位于Lot 6的这套住宅，并告诉我说已经有一买家为套房屋下了定金，如果我想要买，就必须支付房价的12.5%的定金去竞争购买。他还向我保证，我并不需要找销售代理购买新房，一切可交由作为很有信誉的建筑商Minto处理 。”
“The salesperson showed me the house on Lot 6, telling me that the home had been hold by a buyer, and I had to pay down 12.5% of the sales price to challenge the sale if I wanted to buy it,” says Shi. “He further assured me that I didn’t need a sales agent for a new home and could trust Minto to process the transaction as it is such a reputable company.”
据施说， 当3月14日应销售员的邀请前去参观正在建造中的住宅时，她感觉所参观的厨房和主卧室的面积看上去没有楼层平面图标注的尺寸大。她立即向销售员将自己的顾虑提出。
According to Shi, when she was invited to visit the house under construction by a sales agent on Mar.14, she felt that the kitchen area and the master bedroom looked smaller than the size in the floor plan. She immediately brought the issue up with the sales agent.
Ella 施表示：“销售员确定该套房屋是按照Yorkville C户型的楼层平面图建造，只是因为房屋面积太大，所以厨房看起来相对较小。”
“The agent confirmed that the home was built based on the Yorkville C floor plan, but just because the home is big so the kitchen looks smaller,” says Shi.
由于对厨房和主卧室的面积仍然心有疑虑，Ella 施于3月29日向该销售员发送电子邮件，要求确认她计划购买的房屋的面积。销售员在20分钟内就做出了回应：
On Mar. 29, still concerned about the size of the kitchen and the master bedroom, Shi sent an email to the sales agent requesting a confirmation on the size of the home that she planned to purchase. The agent responded 20 minutes later:
“位于Lot 6的Yorkville C户型的占地面积约为13.9米 X 31米，或45.5英尺X 101英尺，总居住面积（除地下室外）为3331平方英尺。”
“The lot size for the Yorkville C on lot 6 is approximately 13.9m X 31m or 45.5ftx101.6ft. The total living space (excluding basement) is 3331 sq ft.”
在得到电子邮件的确认后，施认为不应该再担心了。4月13日，施签订了注明Yorkville C户型住宅的房地产买卖合同(APS)。据施称，她还在APS中所含Yorkville C户型的楼层平面图上做了简签。
With that confirmation, Shi felt that she should no longer worry. On April 13, Shi signed the Agreement of Purchase and Sales (APS), on which a dwelling model of Yorkville C was described. According to Shi, she also initialed a floor plan of the Yorkville C model included in the APS.
5月18日，Ella 施收到了销售经理通过电子邮件发来的一份不同的住宅平面图。该图上的标注令她吃惊不已。这份缩水版的注有“Yorkville Reduced Nook”户型平面图的面积大小仅为“3253 平方英尺”，其厨房和主卧室比施所购的梦中之家“Yorkville C”户型平面图的面积小了25%。
On May 18, Shi received an email from the sales agent with a different floor plan of her home attached. But what was marked on the plan shocked her. It was the “Yorkville Reduced Nook” plan, with an area of “3253 square feet”, with kitchen and master bedroom being 25% smaller than that of the “Yorkville C” floor plan that she thought her dream home was built upon.
Ella施说：“我当时简直不相信我所看到的事实，我立即向销售员发邮件澄清。”
“I couldn’t believe what I saw,” says Shi. “I immediately emailed the sales agent to clarify.”
施在第二天确认这套住宅的厨房和主卧室的确是按照缩水版的平面图建造的。Minto在造房屋时是否弄错了？她的房地产律师在第二天向Minto发送电子邮件指出了户型的差异，并表示Minto“似乎使用了错误的平面图建造该住宅”。
Shi confirmed the next day that the kitchen and the master bedroom were built based on the Reduced Nook Plan. Did Minto make a mistake in building the home? Her real estate lawyer wrote an email to Minto the next day, pointing out the discrepancies in the home models and indicating that “it appears that the wrong plan was used to build the house. “
但是对渥太华市的建筑许可证签发部门的造访使Ella施发现了令她更震惊和难以接受的事实。建筑许可证显示Minto仅被市政府允许使用“2007年缩水版面”（2007 Reduced Nook）的楼层平面图建造住宅。看起来Minto并非使用了什么错误的平面图建造住宅，而是从一开始就申请建造缩水版的住宅。
But a trip Shi made to the Building Permit Department of the City of Ottawa revealed a fact that Shi found even more shocking and difficult to accept. The building permit indicated that Minto was only permitted by the city to build a home based on the floor plan of the “2007 Reduced Nook”. It seems that Minto had not built the home based on the wrong plan, but rather had applied to build a reduced size home at the outset.
2011年5月26日的住宅交割当日，已经和房东取消了租房协议的施别无选择，只能与Minto交割购房交易，但是她决定边交割，边抗议。
On the closing date of May 26, 2011, Shi, who had already cancelled her rental agreement with the landlord, had no choice but to close the purchase deal with Minto, but she decided to close under protest.
对此，Minto的法律顾问在信中指出“不接受客户边交割边抗议的做法，”因此，“Minto也不必再完成交割。”
In response, Minto’s legal counsel wrote a letter stating that “closing under protest was not applicable,” and as such, “Minto was not obliged to close.”
2011年6月3日，施的律师致信Minto，指控Minto在建筑许可证申请的住宅模型与Minto决定卖给施的住宅模型截然不同。
On June 3, 2011, Shi’s litigation lawyer wrote to Minto claiming that Minto’s application for the building permit was distinctly different from what the builder decided to sell to Shi.
施的律师在信中写道：“看来Minto打算建造缩水版的Yorkville，并且建成了缩水版的Yorkville，然后对我的客户说，她购买的是完整的Yorkville。但Minto根本不可能向我的客户交割完整的Yorkville。”
“It appears that Minto set out to build a reduced Yorkville, built a reduced Yorkville, and then represented to my client that she was purchasing a full Yorkville, when that could not be the case,” her lawyer wrote.
在安省，新宅购买者受到《安省新宅保障计划法案》的保护，该法规由住宅建筑行业的监管机构Tarion Warranty Corporation负责监管。
In Ontario, new home buyers are protected by the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, which is administered by the Tarion Warranty Corporation, a regulator of home building industry.
Tarion的公司通讯高级经理Melissa Yollick在写给《大中报》的一封电子邮件中表示：“如果购房者有证据证明一家新宅建筑商在购买交易中存在欺诈或进行失实误导行为，Tarion会在每年新屋建筑商更新许可证时对此加以考虑。购房者如果发现建筑商涉及严重违规行为，可以直接联系Tarion。”
Melissa Yollick, Senior Manager, Corporate Communication with Tarion, wrote to Chinese News in an email that “if a purchaser has evidence that a new home builder is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in a purchase transaction, Tarion would consider such issues in connection with the annual renewal process for the builder’s licence to build new homes. A purchaser can contact Tarion directly if they have encountered a serious issue with a builder.”
但是Minto否认施的律师的指控，声称按照合同出售给施的住宅户型与已经建成的住宅别无二致。
But Minto denies the allegations from Shi’s lawyer, stating that the home dwelling it sold to Shi under the APS was exactly the same one it has built.
Minto的律师在回复给施的律师的信中称：“Minto建造了缩水版的住宅户型，出售的也正是这一住宅户型。Minto的立场是，建造的住宅就是按照合同出售的住宅。他在信中强调， 购房者没有购买标准的Yorkville户型，Minto也没有向他们出售这种户型。”
“Minto built a reduced nook dwelling and that is what it sold,” Minto’s lawyer responded to Shi’s counsel in a letter. “And Minto’s position is that the dwelling which was constructed was the specific dwelling which was sold under the APS.” The letter asserts that Shi did not purchase a standard Yorkville model, and that Minto did not sell her such a model.
“你的客户简签的草图并不是合同的组成部分……你的客户在签订合同之前，在销售代表在场的情况下已经全面看过住宅全貌，包括厨房……显然，这些房间的面积从未被改动过。”
“The sketch your client initialled was not part of the APS… Your client fully inspected the dwelling itself, including the kitchen… prior to signing the APS, in the presence of the sales representative, and it would have been obvious that the rooms were the size they are.”
Minto在信中进一步指出，施在交割时违约，因为她“没有在交割当日完成转账和签署所有交割文件”。但是施抛出了另一枚炸弹，似乎足以证实Minto的言辞与事实不符。
Minto further indicated in the letter that it considered Shi in breach of contract, as she “failed to transfer funds and close on the closing date”. But Shi dropped another bombshell, revealing a fact that seems to contradict Minto’s claim.
在施签署的合同中所附的Flex Option Plan平面图上标注着“2010年绘制”字样。
In fact, the drawing of the Flex Option Plan attached to the APS Shi signed was marked with the wording “Drawing of 2010”.
该平面图标注显示出合同中所含的户型是在2010年设计，而Minto所申请的建筑许可证中却指明2007年的户型，这是否足以表明Minto并未将其所建造的住宅户型卖给施？
Would that be another indication that Minto didn’t sell Shi the same home model it has built, as the mark in the drawing indicates that the model in the APS was designed in 2010, while the building permit Minto applied for indicates a model of 2007?
施称：“Minto未能按照合同中注明的户型向我交付房屋……这说明他们违约在先。”
“Minto failed to deliver the home that they sold to me under the contract… They were the ones who breached the contract in the first place,” says Shi.
向Minto发函的Ella 施的诉讼律师Justin Bertrand向《大中报》表示，他对Minto在合同中所描述的住宅户型持有疑问。
Justin Bertrand, Shi’s litigation lawyer who prepared the letter to Minto, told Chinese News that he has some serious concerns about the description of the home model that Minto has put into the agreement.
Bertrand 表示：“我们对该合同持有疑问，认为Minto 对施女士有所不公，且这些文件本身就很说明问题……如果你看一看合同，就会自己得出结论， 合同中的图纸上所注明的是什么， 交给她的住宅又是什么，问题便显而异见。”
“We have some serious concerns about the agreement and that Ms. Shi was mistreated by Minto, and the documents speaks for themselves” says Bertrand. “If you look at them, you can draw a conclusion by yourself and they are pretty straightforward as to what the drawing shows and what in fact she received.”
据施表示， 她几个月后得知Minto以高$5000元的价位将该房出售给另一买主。
According to Shi, Shi learned several months later that Minto sold the home to another buyer with $5000 higher than it sold to Shi.
空头承诺？
Empty promise?
尽管施所做的种种努力，Minto拒绝让步。在施要求返还定金后，Minto的回应说她可以“依照现状”购买房屋并获得$1万元补偿，或是在一年内以现价购买Minto的另一套房屋并获得$1万元折扣，但是Minto拒绝向施返还定金。
Despite Shi’s efforts, Minto refused to budge. In responding to Shi’s request to return the deposit, Minto offered her to close the house “as is” and to give her $10,000, or the option of buying another Minto house within a year at the current price with a $10,000 discount, but Minto has refused to return the deposit to Shi.
施的诉讼律师在2011年6月30日的信中恳求Minto退还施的定金，并向其赔偿$10,000元包括法律费用在内的损害赔偿费。
In his June 30, 2011 letter, Shi’s litigation lawyer pleaded with Minto to return the deposit and to compensate Shi with $10,000 for their damages, including legal fees.
律师信中称：“Minto在渥太华的名声显赫，何不以次机会向施华裔社区证明Minto的所做作为将对得起一名三个孩子的单亲母亲！”
“Given the strong reputation that Minto has in Ottawa, and to use this as an opportunity to shine to the Chinese community that Minto will do the right thing for Shi, a single mother of three children,” read the letter.
Ella 施的诉讼律师Bertrand向《大中报》表示：“这是一件非常，非常不幸的事件，目前，这么大的一笔现金却不在她的手中。”
“It is a very, very unfortunate situation… where a substantial amount of money is not in her hands right now,” says Bertrand, Shi’s litigation lawyer.
施向其律师表示，Minto意识到这起纠纷近来已经引起华裔社区的关注。Minto于5月31日在华裔社区网站上发表信息，表示其将会“努力达成一个解决方案，以履行我们对客户的责任”。
Shi informed her lawyer that Minto, which was aware of the attention that the dispute had received in the Chinese community, posted a message on a Chinese community website on May 31, indicating that it will “work towards a solution that will fulfill our responsibility to our customers.”
据Tarion网站信息，Minto是一家获Tarion执照的建筑商，自2008年起为大大小小住户建筑了3600家新居，该建筑商保持了没有“尚未解决投诉”记录，即Tarion从未记录过一起该建筑商解决不了而需要Tarion介入解决的新居客户投诉。
According to Tarion’s website, Minto, a builder licensed by Tarion, has delivered about 3600 new homes to buyers since 2008, and maintained a record of “zero homes with claims” – indicating that Tarion has never had to step in to directly settle a homeowner’s claim that was unresolved by Minto.
希望Minto能对其承诺有所作为的施，尚未收到该建筑商提出的任何有望促成问题圆满解决的方案和建议。
While Shi has been looking forward to Minto following through on its commitment posted on the website, she hasn’t yet received any offer from Minto that could lead to a satisfactory resolution.
同时，Minto在给《大中报》的回信中，再次表达了对希望解决与施的争端的决心。
Meanwhile, Minto repeated its commitment to resolve the dispute with Shi in a responding email to Chinese News:
“我们在与每一名客户交涉中持以最高的道德和职业标准。我们希望能通过恰当渠道努力解决与施的争端。”
“We hold ourselves to the highest standard of integrity in our dealings with each and every customer. It is our desire to work to resolve the issues with Shi through the appropriate channels.”
但在施看来，这不过是Minto的有一张空头支票，因为Minto的律师曾在9月份向施表示：“我们不会退还你的定金。对我们来说，该事端已经结束。”
But to Shi, it is nothing more than another empty promise, as Minto’s lawyer informed Shi in Sept. that “we will not RETURN your deposit. For us, this matter is at an end.”
Tarion的Yollick在给《大中报》的电邮中表示，建筑商的所做所为有否属实质性的毁约行为是一较为复杂的问题需要视具体案件而定，但“一旦因建筑商实质性的毁约而阻碍购房交割的完成，Tarion的定金保证计划会要求建筑商将定金（上限4万元）归还购房者。”
While indicating whether there has been a fundamental breach of a contract is a complex issue that must be addressed on a case-by-case basis, Yollick of Tarion states in an email to Chinese News that “if the sales transaction has not been completed due to fundamental breach of the purchase contract by the builder, Tarion’s deposit warranty program requires the builder to return the deposit (up to $40,000) to the buyer.”
但施要 Minto退还全部定金。她表示：“Minto未能按照合同将提供我所购买的房屋，我理所当然拿会全部定金……我会通过所有法律渠道维护我的权利。”
But Shi wants the whole amount of her deposit back. “I deserve to have all my deposit returned since Minto failed to deliver the home they sold to me under the contract,” says Shi. “I am preparing to seek all legal channels to fight for my right.”
zT
http://www.bcbay.com/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=116676&extra=page=1
万圣节那天，三个孩子的单亲妈妈Ella 施打扮成巫婆，在Minto Place的办公楼前举牌抗议。
“MINTO还我$66,306元定金。”
“MINTO return my deposit $66,306”.
在万圣节之夜，三个孩子的单亲妈妈Ella 施打扮成邪恶的巫婆，站在Minto Place的办公楼外，手举要求还定金的标语牌，抗议资产数十亿元的住宅建筑公司Minto Communities Inc. 。她声称自己在被误导的情况下签订购买渥太华市一套豪宅的购房合同。
On Halloween night, Ella Shi, a single mother of three dressed in a wicked witch costume, stood outside Minto Place offices, holding a sign with the above words, in protest against Minto Communities Inc. – a multibillion dollar home building company that allegedly misled her into signing a purchase agreement for a luxury home in Ottawa.
是不是消费者在签订合同时忽略合同细节，然后发现合同不如她意就去谴责建筑商的投诉？或是消费者在签署具有法律约束力的文件时对其法律责任一无所知？或是这是一起销售员在购房合同外所做口头承诺的案例？
Did Shi sign a contract without carefully reviewing the details and then blame the builder when the agreement did not turn out the way she expected? Is this one of those cases where the consumer is ignorant of their legal obligations when signing a legally binding document, or one of the cases where salesperson makes verbal promises which are not included in the purchase agreement？
在许多消费者的投诉中，即使是推销员的口中陈述可能有所出入，但他们所签署的合同文件往往都准确说明了所购买的产品和服务。但是Ella 施的经历却有所不同，她指控建筑商没有交付给她一套她在合同中同意购买的住宅。
While in many consumers’ complaints, the documents they signed describe precisely what they purchased — even though they might have been verbally presented with different products or services — Shi’s story is different, as she alleged that the builder did not deliver her the home that she had agreed to purchase in the contract.
施表示：“我有证据证明Minto误导我签订合同，购买他们无法交付的住宅.。”
“I have evidence showing that Minto misled me into signing an agreement that they were unable to deliver,” says Shi.
施于80年代以访问学者身份来到加拿大，后作为一名职业妇女她曾在包括蒙特利尔、北京和新加坡等世界许多城市生活居住。2010年，施决定和三个孩子定居在渥太华。
Shi, who first came to Canada in the late 1980s as a visiting professor, has since traveled to many places in the world as a career woman and lived in several cities and countries – including Montreal, Beijing and Singapore. In 2010, Shi decided to settle down in Ottawa with her three children.
施是否象很多选择定居加国的移民一样，选择定居加拿大，是因为她喜欢加拿大这个国家，相信加国企业都遵守商业道德，并会把消费者的最佳利益至于首位？
Did Shi, like many immigrants to Canada, choose to live in Canada because she likes Canada as a country and believes that all the businesses here are ethical and have the consumers’ best interests in mind?
Ella 施在今年从渥太华地区最大的建筑商之一Minto手中购买位于渥太华东端富有的Orleans郊区的一套豪宅，经历了一场她从未经历过的购房风波。如果说施曾对加国企业报有信任感，这种信任感则很难经得起这场购房风波的考验。
If Shi had ever had that belief, she would hold on to it until she was hit by a home purchasing saga, when she purchased her first home this year from Minto – one of the biggest builders in Ottawa region, in a well established suburb of Orleans, the east end of Ottawa.
风波骤起
Ordeal starts
在2011年2月，Minto办公大楼外张贴的一张写有“激励生活”的巨幅海报引起了Ella 施的注意，她不由得走进了Minto Orleans的售楼中心。
In Feb. 2011, a giant sign “Be Inspired” posted outside of Minto’s office caught Shi’s attention and led her to the Minto sales centre in Orleans.
施说：“灾难就从这一刻降临了”。
“That was when my ordeal started,” says Shi.
Ella 施走进售楼处后，立即被销售员所介绍的位于Lot 6的Yorkville C户型的楼层平面图吸引，这种户型面积为3331平方英尺，其中厨房标注的尺寸为“11英尺 x 10.17英尺”。
According to Shi, while inside the sales office, her attention was directed by the salesperson to the floor plan of the Yorkville C model on Lot 6, with an area of 3331 square feet, and a kitchen measuring 11’ x 10’2.
对于许多家庭来说，厨房是住宅的最重要组成部分，也这是家庭活动集中的地方。而厨房对热爱烹调，喜欢亲手为孩子制作美食的Ella 施来说就重显重要。
The kitchen, for many home owners, is the heart of the home as it is the place where many family activities are held. The kitchen is even more important to Shi, a mother who loves to cook and enjoys preparing her kids’ meals by herself.
施表示，当时Yorkville C户型的厨房看起来足够大，足以满足她的需求并能够让她在此充分施展厨艺。
It seemed to Shi that the kitchen in the Yorkville C model would be big enough to meet her needs and allow her to hone her cooking skills.
施表示：“销售员极力推销位于Lot 6的这套住宅，并告诉我说已经有一买家为套房屋下了定金，如果我想要买，就必须支付房价的12.5%的定金去竞争购买。他还向我保证，我并不需要找销售代理购买新房，一切可交由作为很有信誉的建筑商Minto处理 。”
“The salesperson showed me the house on Lot 6, telling me that the home had been hold by a buyer, and I had to pay down 12.5% of the sales price to challenge the sale if I wanted to buy it,” says Shi. “He further assured me that I didn’t need a sales agent for a new home and could trust Minto to process the transaction as it is such a reputable company.”
据施说， 当3月14日应销售员的邀请前去参观正在建造中的住宅时，她感觉所参观的厨房和主卧室的面积看上去没有楼层平面图标注的尺寸大。她立即向销售员将自己的顾虑提出。
According to Shi, when she was invited to visit the house under construction by a sales agent on Mar.14, she felt that the kitchen area and the master bedroom looked smaller than the size in the floor plan. She immediately brought the issue up with the sales agent.
Ella 施表示：“销售员确定该套房屋是按照Yorkville C户型的楼层平面图建造，只是因为房屋面积太大，所以厨房看起来相对较小。”
“The agent confirmed that the home was built based on the Yorkville C floor plan, but just because the home is big so the kitchen looks smaller,” says Shi.
由于对厨房和主卧室的面积仍然心有疑虑，Ella 施于3月29日向该销售员发送电子邮件，要求确认她计划购买的房屋的面积。销售员在20分钟内就做出了回应：
On Mar. 29, still concerned about the size of the kitchen and the master bedroom, Shi sent an email to the sales agent requesting a confirmation on the size of the home that she planned to purchase. The agent responded 20 minutes later:
“位于Lot 6的Yorkville C户型的占地面积约为13.9米 X 31米，或45.5英尺X 101英尺，总居住面积（除地下室外）为3331平方英尺。”
“The lot size for the Yorkville C on lot 6 is approximately 13.9m X 31m or 45.5ftx101.6ft. The total living space (excluding basement) is 3331 sq ft.”
在得到电子邮件的确认后，施认为不应该再担心了。4月13日，施签订了注明Yorkville C户型住宅的房地产买卖合同(APS)。据施称，她还在APS中所含Yorkville C户型的楼层平面图上做了简签。
With that confirmation, Shi felt that she should no longer worry. On April 13, Shi signed the Agreement of Purchase and Sales (APS), on which a dwelling model of Yorkville C was described. According to Shi, she also initialed a floor plan of the Yorkville C model included in the APS.
5月18日，Ella 施收到了销售经理通过电子邮件发来的一份不同的住宅平面图。该图上的标注令她吃惊不已。这份缩水版的注有“Yorkville Reduced Nook”户型平面图的面积大小仅为“3253 平方英尺”，其厨房和主卧室比施所购的梦中之家“Yorkville C”户型平面图的面积小了25%。
On May 18, Shi received an email from the sales agent with a different floor plan of her home attached. But what was marked on the plan shocked her. It was the “Yorkville Reduced Nook” plan, with an area of “3253 square feet”, with kitchen and master bedroom being 25% smaller than that of the “Yorkville C” floor plan that she thought her dream home was built upon.
Ella施说：“我当时简直不相信我所看到的事实，我立即向销售员发邮件澄清。”
“I couldn’t believe what I saw,” says Shi. “I immediately emailed the sales agent to clarify.”
施在第二天确认这套住宅的厨房和主卧室的确是按照缩水版的平面图建造的。Minto在造房屋时是否弄错了？她的房地产律师在第二天向Minto发送电子邮件指出了户型的差异，并表示Minto“似乎使用了错误的平面图建造该住宅”。
Shi confirmed the next day that the kitchen and the master bedroom were built based on the Reduced Nook Plan. Did Minto make a mistake in building the home? Her real estate lawyer wrote an email to Minto the next day, pointing out the discrepancies in the home models and indicating that “it appears that the wrong plan was used to build the house. “
但是对渥太华市的建筑许可证签发部门的造访使Ella施发现了令她更震惊和难以接受的事实。建筑许可证显示Minto仅被市政府允许使用“2007年缩水版面”（2007 Reduced Nook）的楼层平面图建造住宅。看起来Minto并非使用了什么错误的平面图建造住宅，而是从一开始就申请建造缩水版的住宅。
But a trip Shi made to the Building Permit Department of the City of Ottawa revealed a fact that Shi found even more shocking and difficult to accept. The building permit indicated that Minto was only permitted by the city to build a home based on the floor plan of the “2007 Reduced Nook”. It seems that Minto had not built the home based on the wrong plan, but rather had applied to build a reduced size home at the outset.
2011年5月26日的住宅交割当日，已经和房东取消了租房协议的施别无选择，只能与Minto交割购房交易，但是她决定边交割，边抗议。
On the closing date of May 26, 2011, Shi, who had already cancelled her rental agreement with the landlord, had no choice but to close the purchase deal with Minto, but she decided to close under protest.
对此，Minto的法律顾问在信中指出“不接受客户边交割边抗议的做法，”因此，“Minto也不必再完成交割。”
In response, Minto’s legal counsel wrote a letter stating that “closing under protest was not applicable,” and as such, “Minto was not obliged to close.”
2011年6月3日，施的律师致信Minto，指控Minto在建筑许可证申请的住宅模型与Minto决定卖给施的住宅模型截然不同。
On June 3, 2011, Shi’s litigation lawyer wrote to Minto claiming that Minto’s application for the building permit was distinctly different from what the builder decided to sell to Shi.
施的律师在信中写道：“看来Minto打算建造缩水版的Yorkville，并且建成了缩水版的Yorkville，然后对我的客户说，她购买的是完整的Yorkville。但Minto根本不可能向我的客户交割完整的Yorkville。”
“It appears that Minto set out to build a reduced Yorkville, built a reduced Yorkville, and then represented to my client that she was purchasing a full Yorkville, when that could not be the case,” her lawyer wrote.
在安省，新宅购买者受到《安省新宅保障计划法案》的保护，该法规由住宅建筑行业的监管机构Tarion Warranty Corporation负责监管。
In Ontario, new home buyers are protected by the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, which is administered by the Tarion Warranty Corporation, a regulator of home building industry.
Tarion的公司通讯高级经理Melissa Yollick在写给《大中报》的一封电子邮件中表示：“如果购房者有证据证明一家新宅建筑商在购买交易中存在欺诈或进行失实误导行为，Tarion会在每年新屋建筑商更新许可证时对此加以考虑。购房者如果发现建筑商涉及严重违规行为，可以直接联系Tarion。”
Melissa Yollick, Senior Manager, Corporate Communication with Tarion, wrote to Chinese News in an email that “if a purchaser has evidence that a new home builder is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in a purchase transaction, Tarion would consider such issues in connection with the annual renewal process for the builder’s licence to build new homes. A purchaser can contact Tarion directly if they have encountered a serious issue with a builder.”
但是Minto否认施的律师的指控，声称按照合同出售给施的住宅户型与已经建成的住宅别无二致。
But Minto denies the allegations from Shi’s lawyer, stating that the home dwelling it sold to Shi under the APS was exactly the same one it has built.
Minto的律师在回复给施的律师的信中称：“Minto建造了缩水版的住宅户型，出售的也正是这一住宅户型。Minto的立场是，建造的住宅就是按照合同出售的住宅。他在信中强调， 购房者没有购买标准的Yorkville户型，Minto也没有向他们出售这种户型。”
“Minto built a reduced nook dwelling and that is what it sold,” Minto’s lawyer responded to Shi’s counsel in a letter. “And Minto’s position is that the dwelling which was constructed was the specific dwelling which was sold under the APS.” The letter asserts that Shi did not purchase a standard Yorkville model, and that Minto did not sell her such a model.
“你的客户简签的草图并不是合同的组成部分……你的客户在签订合同之前，在销售代表在场的情况下已经全面看过住宅全貌，包括厨房……显然，这些房间的面积从未被改动过。”
“The sketch your client initialled was not part of the APS… Your client fully inspected the dwelling itself, including the kitchen… prior to signing the APS, in the presence of the sales representative, and it would have been obvious that the rooms were the size they are.”
Minto在信中进一步指出，施在交割时违约，因为她“没有在交割当日完成转账和签署所有交割文件”。但是施抛出了另一枚炸弹，似乎足以证实Minto的言辞与事实不符。
Minto further indicated in the letter that it considered Shi in breach of contract, as she “failed to transfer funds and close on the closing date”. But Shi dropped another bombshell, revealing a fact that seems to contradict Minto’s claim.
在施签署的合同中所附的Flex Option Plan平面图上标注着“2010年绘制”字样。
In fact, the drawing of the Flex Option Plan attached to the APS Shi signed was marked with the wording “Drawing of 2010”.
该平面图标注显示出合同中所含的户型是在2010年设计，而Minto所申请的建筑许可证中却指明2007年的户型，这是否足以表明Minto并未将其所建造的住宅户型卖给施？
Would that be another indication that Minto didn’t sell Shi the same home model it has built, as the mark in the drawing indicates that the model in the APS was designed in 2010, while the building permit Minto applied for indicates a model of 2007?
施称：“Minto未能按照合同中注明的户型向我交付房屋……这说明他们违约在先。”
“Minto failed to deliver the home that they sold to me under the contract… They were the ones who breached the contract in the first place,” says Shi.
向Minto发函的Ella 施的诉讼律师Justin Bertrand向《大中报》表示，他对Minto在合同中所描述的住宅户型持有疑问。
Justin Bertrand, Shi’s litigation lawyer who prepared the letter to Minto, told Chinese News that he has some serious concerns about the description of the home model that Minto has put into the agreement.
Bertrand 表示：“我们对该合同持有疑问，认为Minto 对施女士有所不公，且这些文件本身就很说明问题……如果你看一看合同，就会自己得出结论， 合同中的图纸上所注明的是什么， 交给她的住宅又是什么，问题便显而异见。”
“We have some serious concerns about the agreement and that Ms. Shi was mistreated by Minto, and the documents speaks for themselves” says Bertrand. “If you look at them, you can draw a conclusion by yourself and they are pretty straightforward as to what the drawing shows and what in fact she received.”
据施表示， 她几个月后得知Minto以高$5000元的价位将该房出售给另一买主。
According to Shi, Shi learned several months later that Minto sold the home to another buyer with $5000 higher than it sold to Shi.
空头承诺？
Empty promise?
尽管施所做的种种努力，Minto拒绝让步。在施要求返还定金后，Minto的回应说她可以“依照现状”购买房屋并获得$1万元补偿，或是在一年内以现价购买Minto的另一套房屋并获得$1万元折扣，但是Minto拒绝向施返还定金。
Despite Shi’s efforts, Minto refused to budge. In responding to Shi’s request to return the deposit, Minto offered her to close the house “as is” and to give her $10,000, or the option of buying another Minto house within a year at the current price with a $10,000 discount, but Minto has refused to return the deposit to Shi.
施的诉讼律师在2011年6月30日的信中恳求Minto退还施的定金，并向其赔偿$10,000元包括法律费用在内的损害赔偿费。
In his June 30, 2011 letter, Shi’s litigation lawyer pleaded with Minto to return the deposit and to compensate Shi with $10,000 for their damages, including legal fees.
律师信中称：“Minto在渥太华的名声显赫，何不以次机会向施华裔社区证明Minto的所做作为将对得起一名三个孩子的单亲母亲！”
“Given the strong reputation that Minto has in Ottawa, and to use this as an opportunity to shine to the Chinese community that Minto will do the right thing for Shi, a single mother of three children,” read the letter.
Ella 施的诉讼律师Bertrand向《大中报》表示：“这是一件非常，非常不幸的事件，目前，这么大的一笔现金却不在她的手中。”
“It is a very, very unfortunate situation… where a substantial amount of money is not in her hands right now,” says Bertrand, Shi’s litigation lawyer.
施向其律师表示，Minto意识到这起纠纷近来已经引起华裔社区的关注。Minto于5月31日在华裔社区网站上发表信息，表示其将会“努力达成一个解决方案，以履行我们对客户的责任”。
Shi informed her lawyer that Minto, which was aware of the attention that the dispute had received in the Chinese community, posted a message on a Chinese community website on May 31, indicating that it will “work towards a solution that will fulfill our responsibility to our customers.”
据Tarion网站信息，Minto是一家获Tarion执照的建筑商，自2008年起为大大小小住户建筑了3600家新居，该建筑商保持了没有“尚未解决投诉”记录，即Tarion从未记录过一起该建筑商解决不了而需要Tarion介入解决的新居客户投诉。
According to Tarion’s website, Minto, a builder licensed by Tarion, has delivered about 3600 new homes to buyers since 2008, and maintained a record of “zero homes with claims” – indicating that Tarion has never had to step in to directly settle a homeowner’s claim that was unresolved by Minto.
希望Minto能对其承诺有所作为的施，尚未收到该建筑商提出的任何有望促成问题圆满解决的方案和建议。
While Shi has been looking forward to Minto following through on its commitment posted on the website, she hasn’t yet received any offer from Minto that could lead to a satisfactory resolution.
同时，Minto在给《大中报》的回信中，再次表达了对希望解决与施的争端的决心。
Meanwhile, Minto repeated its commitment to resolve the dispute with Shi in a responding email to Chinese News:
“我们在与每一名客户交涉中持以最高的道德和职业标准。我们希望能通过恰当渠道努力解决与施的争端。”
“We hold ourselves to the highest standard of integrity in our dealings with each and every customer. It is our desire to work to resolve the issues with Shi through the appropriate channels.”
但在施看来，这不过是Minto的有一张空头支票，因为Minto的律师曾在9月份向施表示：“我们不会退还你的定金。对我们来说，该事端已经结束。”
But to Shi, it is nothing more than another empty promise, as Minto’s lawyer informed Shi in Sept. that “we will not RETURN your deposit. For us, this matter is at an end.”
Tarion的Yollick在给《大中报》的电邮中表示，建筑商的所做所为有否属实质性的毁约行为是一较为复杂的问题需要视具体案件而定，但“一旦因建筑商实质性的毁约而阻碍购房交割的完成，Tarion的定金保证计划会要求建筑商将定金（上限4万元）归还购房者。”
While indicating whether there has been a fundamental breach of a contract is a complex issue that must be addressed on a case-by-case basis, Yollick of Tarion states in an email to Chinese News that “if the sales transaction has not been completed due to fundamental breach of the purchase contract by the builder, Tarion’s deposit warranty program requires the builder to return the deposit (up to $40,000) to the buyer.”
但施要 Minto退还全部定金。她表示：“Minto未能按照合同将提供我所购买的房屋，我理所当然拿会全部定金……我会通过所有法律渠道维护我的权利。”
But Shi wants the whole amount of her deposit back. “I deserve to have all my deposit returned since Minto failed to deliver the home they sold to me under the contract,” says Shi. “I am preparing to seek all legal channels to fight for my right.”
zT
