Digest: Tsang v Realty Executives Saskatoon, 2018 SKPC 30

• Date: April 26, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKPC 30

Docket Number: SC 249/16 , PC17118

Court: Provincial Court

Date: 2018-04-26

Judges:

• Scott

Subjects:

• Torts ��Negligent Misrepresentation�� Damages
• Professions and Occupations ��Realtor
• Real Estate � Sale of House ��Negligent Misrepresentation
• Civil Procedure � Limitation Period

Digest: The plaintiff purchased a house, took possession on March 30, 2014, and afterwards found a number of defects. He claimed that the defendant realtor, Singler, made negligent or fraudulent representations regarding the condition of the residence and the costs associated with its repair and renovation. The plaintiff alleged that he and Singler were in a fiduciary relationship and that the latter breached his fiduciary duty. The plaintiff requested judgment in the amount of $25,000 which he said represented the excess costs to repair deficiencies along with aggravated and punitive damages. The plaintiff also brought the action against the defendant, Realty Executives, on the ground that it was vicariously liable for Singler�s conduct. The plaintiff was a first-time home buyer and, being from Hong Kong, was unfamiliar with Canadian home construction. After engaging Singler�s services, he was shown the property in question on two occasions before making an offer conditional upon the completion of a satisfactory home inspection. The conditions were to be removed by midnight of the day that the home inspection occurred. Singler arranged for the home inspection and provided the report to the plaintiff at 7 p.m. The plaintiff had not been present during the inspection and after reviewing the report, raised a number of concerns with Singler about the condition of the basement floor. He also noted that as there was no access to view the foundation, he was nervous about whether it had problems. He also asked Singler to estimate the total cost of repairing the floor. Singler replied that repairs in the basement would cost no more than $10,000 and that the foundation would not require work because the home inspector had looked at it with an infrared camera and observed no problems. He also told the plaintiff that the vendors would not reduce their price. Just before the deadline, Singler urged the plaintiff to make his decision and advised him that the house was underpriced and that he would have bought it himself as he had formerly been a house inspector. The plaintiff then agreed to remove the conditions. On April...