Publications

Professional Negligence for Realtors – A Rising Tide

Published:

May 6, 2011

Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Krawchuk v. Scherbak. The Court’s reasoning appears to send a signal that real estate professionals will be held to a higher standard of care than has, to date, been enforced against them.

The case of Krawchuk v. Scherbak involved the sale of a house that, unbeknownst to the buyer, had significant structural and plumbing defects. The house had been listed for sale with the same real estate agent and brokerage firm that then went on to represent the buyer in the sale. When the agent and the buyer viewed the house prior to making an offer, the buyer noticed a number of visible defects, including sloped floors, a foam-filled crack in the north wall of the crawl space, and sloping brick and block work at the exterior on the north side of the house. The buyer and agent discussed these defects. The agent told the buyer that the sellers had advised her that the house had settled, been repaired, and that there had been no further problems in the 17 years they lived there. This information was previously set out in the Seller’s Property Information Sheet (“SPIS”, the Ontario equivalent to a Property Condition Disclosure Statement in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and a Property Condition Statement in New Brunswick). At the time of offer, the agent told the buyer that she was entitled to a professional home inspection. There were, however, a number of other offers on the property. The buyer wanted to make her offer more attractive to the sellers. The court accepted that the buyer understood the value and purpose of a professional home inspection. Nonetheless, after some discussion with the agent, the buyer agreed to waive the condition requiring a home inspection. In the end, her offer was accepted at $110,100, being $10,100 above asking price.

Shortly after possession, the buyer noticed accumulations of sand near the brick work in the crawl space. Subsequent investigation revealed significant ongoing settling that threatened the integrity of the entire house. The buyer estimated that she spent $191,414.94 to repair the house. She sued the sellers and her real estate agent for her repair costs. At trial, the sellers were found liable to the buyer in negligence for making false and misleading statements in the SPIS. The claim against the real estate agent was dismissed. The trial court noted that she had made inquiries about the visible defects with the sellers, and passed that information along to the buyer. The court found that the agent had no reason to doubt the information the sellers provided.

COURT OF APPEAL – AGENT’S LIABILITY TO THE BUYER

On appeal, Justice Epstein, speaking for the unanimous court, reversed the trial decision and found the real estate agent liable to the buyer in negligence. The agent admitted at discovery that she had no expertise as a home inspector. Justice Epstein found that, given the agent’s admitted lack of expertise in the area, the agent ought to have considered whether the sellers might be mistaken about their impressions of the defects despite their apparent honesty and credibility. Justice Epstein stated that the repairs the sellers had conducted were “perfunctory”. She found that the agent ought to have been put on inquiry by the fact that the sellers had no knowledge of the extent of any repairs prior to their taking ownership, and the agent’s knowledge that the existence of a sloped floor might indicate ongoing structural issues. At that point, the agent should have either independently verified the state of the foundation, or recommended “in the strongest terms” that the buyer obtain a professional home inspection. Justice Epstein noted that in general, courts hearing professional negligence cases ought not to find the breach of a standard of care in the absence of expert evidence. Notwithstanding, the court is free to find a breach where (a) it is faced with “nontechnical matters or those which an ordinary person may be expected to have knowledge”; or (b) where the impugned actions of the defendant are “so egregious that it is obvious that his or her conduct has fallen short of the standard of care, even without knowing precisely the parameters of that standard”. Justice Epstein found that although the trial court did not receive any expert evidence, the agent’s conduct was an egregious breach that engaged the second exception.

AGENT’S LIABILITY TO THE SELLER

Equally significant were Justice Epstein’s findings concerning the real estate agent’s liability to the sellers. The sellers advanced a cross-claim against the agent at trial. They alleged that they relied upon the agent to advise them of their obligations in completing the SPIS. The trial court was not required to address the cross-claim in view of its dismissal of the buyer’s claim against the agent. The Court of Appeal, however, found that the agent breached her duty to the sellers by failing to provide them with adequate advice. In particular, Justice Epstein found that the agent had a duty to provide specific warnings to the sellers that they might be providing information in the SPIS that they were not legally required to provide. Justice Epstein found that a real estate agent has a duty to warn a seller that the seller is able to rely upon the doctrine of caveat emptor where no SPIS is provided. If, on the other hand, the seller provides an SPIS, caveat emptor no longer applies, and the buyer will likely be able to rely upon the truthfulness and accuracy of the SPIS in deciding the extent to which a contractor will be instructed to conduct a home inspection.

CASE SIGNIFICANCE

Krawchuk v. Scherbak is significant to cases involving the liability of real estate agents for at least two reasons: firstly, it signals an expansion of the real estate agent’s role in a real estate transaction; secondly, it sounds a warning about the continued use of Property Condition Disclosure Statements and their equivalents. As to the agent’s role in a real estate transaction, the case sends a clear message that courts will treat real estate agents as being much more than mere conduits of information and facilitators of a sale.

While real estate agents have always been under a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing information and advice to property buyers, a buyer’s agent has traditionally been entitled to rely upon representations of fact made by the seller. The duties of a buyer’s agent have, to date, been restricted. Generally speaking, a buyer’s agent has only been required to make independent inquiry where the matter was of particular importance to the agent’s client, or the matter was something that a prudent real estate agent would ordinarily verify: see, for example, Fraser v. Powell River Real Estate Ltd., [1998] B.C.J. No. 2281 (C.A.), and Kisil v. John F. Stevens Limited, [1980] N.S.J. No. 515 (S.C.).

For buyer’s agents, it is significant that the court found that the duty of an agent to verify information from the seller can arise even in the absence of any “red flags” that may raise doubt about the accuracy of that information. In the case of the seller’s agent, the duty suggested by Krawchuk v. Scherbak is somewhat greater than previous authorities. It had previously been accepted that a seller’s agent has a duty to ascertain and verify all pertinent facts provided by the seller: Sedgemore v. Block Bros. Realty Ltd. (1985), 39 R.P.R. 38 (B.C.S.C.). Even so, the duty of a seller’s agent could be considered discharged by instructing the sellers to complete a Property Condition Disclosure Statement truthfully, and to the best of their ability, unless the agent had reason to doubt the veracity of the seller’s information: Neill v. Trenholm, 2000 CanLII 10652 (NBQB). Clearly, this is no longer the case, as the court has found that the agent for a seller must also provide further warning about the legal effect of signing a Property Condition Disclosure Statement. As to the continued use of Property Condition Disclosure Forms and their equivalents, the Ontario Court of Appeal echoed the following statement by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Alevizos v. Nirula (2003), 180 Man. R. (2d) 186, at paragraph 47: This judgment should, in my view, be taken as a warning about the routine use of the [Property Condition Statement].

The purchase and sale of a home is for many people the most significant business transaction they will ever enter into. Representations as to the condition of the property are inevitably going to be requested and given. I do not believe that these concerns are ever going to be safely dealt with by filling in the blanks on a short form carried in the real estate agent’s briefcase with his or her other supplies. With the expansion of real estate agents’ role and duties toward their clients comes a greater scope for findings of liability. Based on Krawchuk v. Scherbak, real estate agents would also be well advised to reconsider their continued use of Property Condition Disclosure Statements and their equivalents.

As always, please feel free to direct any questions to your usual point of contact at McInnes Cooper. Inquiries of a general nature can be directed to any of member of the McInnes Cooper Insurance Team.

Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

Professional Negligence for Realtors – A Rising Tide

Published:

Share

Share

Related Services

Related Industries

Related Publications

Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction: Words Come First When Interpreting Insurance Policy

N.B. Construction Remedies Act: 7 Key Changes from the Mechanics’ Lien Act

CCDC 2 (2020): 8 Key Changes to the Stipulated Price Contract

Predicting the Claims Landscape Post COVID-19

Coping with COVID-19: Assessing Travel Insurance Claims

Bailey v. Temple: NL Appeal Court Cautions You Don’t Get More Release Than You Bargained For

Prompt Payment Coming Down the Pike in NS: What Owners & Contractors Must Know

Compton v. Toyota: N.L. Appeal Court Eliminates the Expert Fact Witness

N.S. Appeal Court Confirms Future Wage Loss Calculated on Gross Basis in MacDonald v. MacVicar

Future-Focused: N.S. Appeal Court Confirms Future CPP Disability Benefits Are Deductible from Future Income Loss Awards in MVA Claims in Holland v. Sparks

N.S. Court Decides Future Wage Loss Calculated on Gross – Not Net – Basis in MacDonald v. MacVicar

N.S. Court of Appeal Offers 5 Key Insights into the new N.S. Limitations Act’s Saving Provision in Barry v. Halifax (Regional Municipality)

No Matter the Chatter, the Bid is the Bottom Line: N.S. Supreme Court Issues a Reminder in CF Construction v. Town of Westville

A N.S. First: Extended Earning-Replacement Benefits are Deductible from N.S. Section B Weekly Income Replacement Benefits in McLean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Company

N.S. Appeal Court puts a Lid on medical Pot: No health plan coverage & no workers compensation benefits in Canadian Elevator Industry Welfare Trust Fund v. Skinner & Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal)

Do Something: General Contractor Liable for Failing to Disclose the Existence of Labour & Materials Bond in Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction Co.

The Dope on Medical Cannabis Health Benefits: Key Considerations for a Coverage Strategy

How the Pros Get Into Canada: 5 FAQs About the NAFTA Professional Work Permit

A Lump of Coal for Christmas: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Auditor Negligent & Liable for $40 Million in Livent v. Deloitte

Denis Mahoney & Brittany Keating in the NLCA 2018 Construction Journal | Testing 1-2-3: The latest on drug & alcohol testing in safety-sensitive workplaces

Meghan Felt & David Nurse in the NLCA 2018 Construction Journal | The Atlantic Immigration Pilot: A test flight for the Newfoundland & Labrador construction industry

It’s Official: “Facilitation Payments” to Foreign Public Officials Violates Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA)

Cross-Border Caution: 5 Anti-Corruption Law Compliance Program Tips

Watching Your Claims Go Up In Smoke? Five Key Medical Cannabis Cost of Care Considerations

Supreme Court of Canada Puts Insurers on Notice in Saadati v. Moorhead: Proof of a Recognized Psychiatric Injury is Not a Precondition to Recovery

Are Future CPP Disability Benefits Deductible? N.S. Court of Appeal Says Yes in Motor Vehicle Accident Claims in Tibbetts v. Murphy

Better Late than Never: N.S. Government Enacts Early Release of Holdback Regulations

Nip it in the Bud: A 5 Step Plan for Employers to Prepare for Cannabis Legalization in Canada

Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

Register Before You Lobby in N.B. under Lobbyists’ Registration Act

Dust Off Your Limitation Defence: Court of Appeal Doesn’t Apply Extended Limitation Period in Yarmouth (District) v Nickerson

It’s Settled: SCC says Future CPP Disability Benefits Are Not Deductible Under SEF 44 Endorsement in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co.

Confidentiality Risks of Doing Business With the Public Sector Just Got Riskier: Completed NS Access to Information Requests Go Online

Don’t Sell Yet: How Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) Changes Affect Trusts

Newfoundland & Labrador’s New Public Procurement Act

Newfoundland & Labrador: A New Public Procurement Act for 2017

Supreme Court of Canada Says Privilege Wins Again – Twice in Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada & Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary

This Bridge is not for (Lien) Sale: N.S. Court decides Macdonald Bridge Cannot be Liened in Certification Coating Specialists v. Cherubini et.al.

NB Court of Appeal Clarifies Mortgage Lenders’ Rights on Default in Keough v. Sandfire Capital Limited Partnership: 5 Steps for NB Mortgage Lenders to Consider

Supreme Court of Canada Gives a Lesson in Insurance Contract Interpretation in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Canada Decides Indian Bands Assessing Leased Reserve Lands for Property Tax Purposes Can’t Have it Both Ways in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review)

Limitation Periods: Avoiding Hitting the Reset Button in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings

Municipal Liability for ByLaw Enforcement: A Bylaw’s Not a Bylaw in Vlanich v. Typhair

Common Ground: Retail & Commercial Condominium Financing

Weigh Now or Weight Later: New Cargo Container Verified Gross Mass (VGM) Rules Effective July 1, 2016

Realtor Risk Management: 10 Practical Tips to Help Realtors Manage Litigation Risk

The Parameters of Municipal Power: Supreme Court of Canada Decides Municipality Can’t Block Radiocommunication Tower Construction in Rogers Communications Inc. v. Châteauguay (City)

Newfoundland & Labrador Crown Immunity for Mechanics’ Lien Holdbacks: 3 Key Risks for Subcontractors in Brook Construction (2007) v. Blackwood Contractors Ltd.

A Red Flag for Municipalities & Developers: Supreme Court of Canada Decides Not Every Positive Covenant Under a Development Agreement Runs With the Land in Heritage Capital Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co.

The Legal Defence of Due Diligence: Top 5 FAQs

From Watershed Decision to Watershed Law: Government Proposes Physician-Assisted Dying Law in Bill C-14 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

Doing Business With the Public Sector: Key Confidentiality Risks & 3 Risk Management Strategies

Construction Project Manager Sentenced to 3½ Years for Workplace Accident in R. v. Vadim Kazenelson (aka “Metron”)

Doe 464533 v. D.: Business Implications of the Civil Privacy Claim for “Public Disclosure of Private Facts”

Bad Faith & Production of an Insurer’s Business Information: 4 Key Implications of the NB Court of Appeal’s Decision in Wade v. Wawanesa Ins. Co.

3 Reasons for Directors, Officers and Supervisors To Take Occupational Health and Safety Personally

Nova Scotia Goes Its Own Way: Future CPP Disability Benefits Deductible Under SEF 44 in Portage Le Prairie Mutual Insurance Company v. Sabean and Hallett

Tread Carefully: 10 Considerations for Right of Way Agreements

More than a Mere Nuisance – 5 Snow Loading FAQs

Final Form of New NS Limitation of Actions Act: “Sudden Death” Limitation is Out for Personal Injury Claims

No More Criminalization of Physician-Assisted Dying: The Ripple Effects of A Watershed Decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)

Complying with Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL): A blueprint for the construction industry

Egg Films Epilogue: 5 Key Implications of NS Union Certification Based on “Industry” Dependence in Egg Films Inc. v. Nova Scotia (Labour Board)

NS Proposes New Limitation of Actions Act: The 3 Top Benefits & The 10 Key Changes

Changes to NB Rules of Court Effective October 1, 2014 Benefit Successful Party

What’s In The Pipe? Municipal Liability for Flood and Sewage Back-Up Claims

NS Workers’ Compensation Board Issues New Policy for Psychological Injury Claims

Stay Updated