Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Home inspector failed to identify significant, visible defects in the foundation, roof, and windows during a non-invasive inspection.

• Plaintiffs relied on the inspection report when purchasing a property that turned out to require major repairs.

• The court held that the inspector did not meet the standard of care required under national industry standards.

• No binding contract existed, but tort duties were still owed due to the inspector’s representations.

• Written reporting was found to be mandatory under industry standards, and verbal comments did not suffice.

• Damages were awarded based on reliable evidence of repair costs, despite the simplified procedure’s limits.

Background and facts of the case

Monique Miller and Michel Desjardins purchased a residential property in Alexandria, Ontario, in 2020. Their offer to purchase was conditional upon a satisfactory home inspection. Their real estate agent arranged for Jacques Lajoie, a self-described professional home inspector operating as J.F. Lajoie Inspections, to conduct the inspection. Mr. Lajoie provided a report after a brief inspection, for which he was paid $425 by the realtor. The plaintiffs, who had no technical knowledge of home construction, reviewed the report and contacted Mr. Lajoie to clarify its contents. They testified that they were reassured by his responses and decided to proceed with the purchase.

Shortly after taking possession, they experienced leaks from the roof and windows, and other major defects became apparent. They commissioned additional inspections, including one by expert Charbel Azzi, who testified at trial. His findings, along with a previous report by another inspector, highlighted serious and visible structural problems that should have been flagged in Mr. Lajoie's original inspection.

Legal claims and procedural background

The plaintiffs sued for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Although J.F. Lajoie Construction Inc. was initially named, the plaintiffs ultimately pursued claims only against Mr. Lajoie personally. The action was brought under Rule 76 as a simplified procedure in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Negligence and standard of care

The court found that Mr. Lajoie owed the plaintiffs a duty of care to perform the inspection to the standard of a reasonably competent home inspector. Despite his lack of certification, he represented himself as a professional, and the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on his report. The court adopted the 2012 standards from the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors as the applicable benchmark.

The court concluded that Mr. Lajoie's inspection fell short of the required standard. He failed to report in writing on significant, visible defects in the foundation, roof, and windows. The deficiencies were later confirmed by the Slaney and Azzi reports. His written report was unclear, inconsistent, and lacked crucial explanations. The judge emphasized that verbal comments could not substitute for proper written documentation under the industry standards.

Negligent misrepresentation

In addition to negligence, the court found that Mr. Lajoie made negligent misrepresentations by issuing a misleading report that downplayed or omitted critical deficiencies. The plaintiffs’ reliance on this report was deemed reasonable, and it influenced their decision to purchase the home.

Damages and outcome

The court awarded the plaintiffs $64,211.80 in damages, calculated as follows: $33,193.75 for foundation repairs, $14,058.33 for roof replacement, and $15,666.67 for partial window and door replacement. Claims for cosmetic or minor repairs were denied as they did not materially affect the purchase decision or stem directly from Mr. Lajoie’s failures.

Justice Flaherty concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation based on the major structural defects that were improperly or inadequately reported by Mr. Lajoie. The decision underscores the responsibility of home inspectors to provide thorough, clear, and written assessments that meet professional standards, even in simplified legal proceedings.