Latent Defects

Gladu v Robineau, 2017 ONSC 37 (CanLII)

[292] The distinction between patent and latent defects is described in Halsbury’s Laws of England, at para. 51: Defects of quality may be either patent or latent. Patent defects are such as are discoverable by inspection and ordinary vigilance on the part of a purchaser, and latent defects are such as would not be revealed by any inquiry which a purchaser is in a position to make before entering into the contract for purchase.

[293] A home inspection is not intended to find latent defects. At para. 76 of Lyle v. Burdess, 2008 YKSM 5 (CanLII), Cozens Terr. Ct. J. agreed with the comments of Killeen J. in Kaufmann v. Gibson (2007), 59 R.P.R. (4th) 293 (Ont. S.C.), stating:

In circumstances where there is no [Property Disclosure Statement] prepared, a prudent purchaser would be expected to contract for a more thorough home inspection if the buyer wished to avoid future costly surprises. Where a PDS has been prepared, however, the buyer should be able to rely on the truthfulness and accuracy of the representations in the PDS in deciding the extent to which a contractor will be instructed to conduct a home inspection.

Robb-Sim v Solomes, 2013 CanLII 41925 (ON SCSM)

DEFECTS AND QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGE

14. At the trial the plaintiff and her home inspector described the following defects in the property:

a. Heaving, warping and separating of the hardwood floors,

b. Water leaking into the basement,

c. Foundation cracks,

d. Cracked ceramic tiles,

e. Side door below level of driveway,

f. Improper grading around house generally, and the window wells specifically,

g. Lifting of flashing at peak of roof,

h. Deficient bridging of joists in basement, and

i. A window installed sideways.