Can a builder and contractor be held to owe a duty to subsequent purchasers for the cost of repairing non-dangerous defects in a building?

Of most relevance to the issue here are his comments at para. 41: Given the clear presence of a real and substantial danger in this case, I do not find it necessary to consider whether contractors should also in principle be held to owe a duty to subsequent purchasers for the cost of repairing non-dangerous defects in buildings. It was not raised by the parties. I note that appellate courts in New Zealand … Australia … and in numerous American states … have all recognized some form of general duty of builders and contractors to subsequent purchasers with regard to the reasonable fitness and habitability of a building. In Quebec, it is also now well-established that contractors, subcontractors, engineers and architects owe a duty to successors in title in immovable property for economic loss suffered as a result of faulty construction, design and workmanship … However, it is right to note that from the tone of Dickson J.'s reasons in Fraser-Reid v. Droumtsekas … he would appear to be cool to the idea, though he found it unnecessary to canvass the point. For my part, I would require argument more squarely focused on the issue before entertaining this possibility. [Citations omitted.]