Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the real estate broker failed to include key financing conditions in the promise to purchase.

• Evaluation of the broker's alleged failure to communicate effectively with the buyer and mortgage lender.

• Assessment of whether the broker negligently advised the buyer or misrepresented the financing process.

• Consideration of whether the buyer's anxiety and change of mind after inspection constituted valid legal grounds for withdrawal.

• Determination of causation between the buyer’s financial losses and the broker’s alleged misconduct.

• Rejection of damages claim based on insufficient evidence of professional fault or contractual breach by the broker.

Facts of the case

Stéphanie Pilon, the plaintiff, engaged Christiane Lavoie, a real estate broker operating under Groupe Sutton and a longtime personal acquaintance, to help her purchase a revenue property. On January 17, 2022, Pilon signed a promise to purchase a four-unit property in Saint-Hyacinthe for $549,000, conditional on securing mortgage financing of $495,000. The offer was accepted the same day. A $54,000 deposit was also agreed upon.

Following a pre-purchase inspection on January 28, 2022, Pilon realized that two basement units required substantial renovations. She began seeking an additional $100,000 in financing in the form of a home equity line of credit. She had already been preapproved by BMO for a $439,920 mortgage, and a formal mortgage offer followed on February 15, 2022. Concerned about the renovation costs and realizing she would need to pay a larger down payment than expected, Pilon ultimately withdrew from the purchase prior to the closing date of March 18, 2022.

She then sued Lavoie for $15,000, alleging professional negligence. Her claim included notary and inspection fees, $5,000 in moral damages, and $3,000 in extrajudicial fees. Pilon argued that the broker failed to include the additional financing condition in the offer to purchase and improperly reassured her that all necessary funding would be secured. She also claimed she was excluded from communication with the mortgage lender and blamed the broker for the failed deal.

Outcome of the decision

The Court dismissed Pilon’s claim in full. Judge Diane Quenneville found that the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s allegations. The request for a $100,000 home equity line was made only after the offer to purchase had been signed and accepted. Therefore, the broker could not have included such a condition beforehand. The Court also found no basis to believe that Lavoie guaranteed financing approval or excluded Pilon from lender communications. In fact, email evidence confirmed that the bank was in direct contact with Pilon throughout the process.

The judge concluded that the real reason for the failed transaction was Pilon’s growing anxiety over the financial commitment, not any error by the broker. The plaintiff began expressing regret shortly after learning about repair costs and realizing she would need to contribute over $100,000 of her own funds. The broker was not responsible for Pilon’s change of mind or for her failure to assess her financing capacity prior to submitting the offer.

Ultimately, the Court found that Lavoie had fulfilled her duties and that no professional fault had been committed. Pilon’s claim was rejected, and she was ordered to pay $230 in court costs related to the defendant’s filing.