Court mandates $120,000 payment for location confusion.

QUICK HITS

 

• A Realtor misrepresented the location of a new-build property to buyers, leading them to believe it was in Brampton when it was actually in Caledon, three kilometres away. 
• After discovering the mistake, the buyers sued, and the Ontario Court of Appeal held the Realtor and their brokerage liable for negligent misrepresentation.
• The court ordered them to repay the buyers’ $120,000 deposit.

In some cases, misrepresentations made prior to the signing of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), may allow a buyer to sue for damages, as demonstrated by Zhang v. Primont Homes (Caledon) Inc., in which a real estate agent was found liable to his clients for misrepresentation concerning the location of a development property.

Location mix-up in new build purchase

In February 2017, the buyers agreed to buy an investment property to be built in a new subdivision by a developer for $1.2 million, with a deposit of $120,000. The transaction was set to close in 2019.

The buyers had been told by their real estate agent that the property was located at or near a specific intersection in Brampton, Ont. However, in May 2018, the buyers drove by the intersection to check on the progress of the development and discovered that the property that they had agreed to purchase was not located at the site indicated by their agent but rather in Caledon, Ont., about three kilometres north of their expected site.  

Buyers take legal action

The buyers then took the position that they should not be required to close the transaction and commenced litigation against various parties, including their agent, his brokerage and the developer. The buyers argued that the defendants had misrepresented the location of the development and that they were entitled to refuse to complete the purchase of the property and recover their deposit. They also claimed damages for lost profits. The developer counterclaimed for damages flowing from the buyers’ repudiation of the APS.

Prior to the trial, the buyers settled with the developer and agreed that it was entitled to keep the $120,000 deposit. In exchange, the developer abandoned its counterclaim.

After a trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the real estate agent and brokerage were ordered to pay $120,000, the deposit amount, to the buyers, with interest, and costs of $30,000. The trial judge declined to award the buyers any damages for lost profits.

On appeal, the agent and brokerage argued that the trial judge erred in finding that they negligently misrepresented the property’s location or that the misrepresentation was the cause of any damages suffered by the buyers. The Court of Appeal for Ontario disagreed.

The first ground of appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellants negligently misrepresented the property’s location and whether the buyers relied on this misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge made findings of fact based on the divergent accounts of the parties’ interactions and communications prior to the signing of the APS. The trial judge assessed and preferred the buyers’ evidence concerning what the appellants allegedly communicated about the location of the proposed development. Further, the misrepresentation about the property’s location was a key factor in the buyers’ decision to invest their money in the development because they believed “it was in a ‘mature’ community with large houses and schools”. Had they known of the property’s actual location, the buyers would not have agreed to sign the APS or pay the deposit.

No expert evidence required

The appellants further argued that the buyers ought to have been required to adduce expert evidence on the standard of care of a real estate agent or broker to establish liability. As a general rule, expert evidence is required to support a claim against a licensed professional, such as a real estate agent.

A breach may, however, be established without the need for expert evidence concerning “non-technical matters or those of which an ordinary person may be expected to know to have knowledge. The trial judge found that the appellants’ representation that the property would be built near an intersection in Brampton as opposed to a completely different location three kilometres distant was an example of a “non-technical” matter. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that expert evidence was not required to find that the appellants’ misrepresentation was negligent.

Causation and legal principles 

The second ground of appeal advanced was that the trial judge erred in finding that the negligent misrepresentation was the legal cause of any loss to the buyers. The appellants argued that the buyers could not, as a matter of legal principle, recover against them without first recovering damages against the developer.

The Court of Appeal disagreed that the buyers were required to prove that they had the…