After closing of a real estate transaction, the Plaintiff purchasers discovered that both of their vehicles would not fit in what was advertised by the Defendants in a listing as a double car garage.

As a result, the claim was brought by the Plaintiff purchasers for $35,000 for alleged negligence and misrepresentation by the Defendants in their duties as realtors for the vendors.

At its core, this case turned on whether purchasers can displace caveat emptor, also known as “buyer beware” by relying on listing descriptions rather than undertaking their own reasonable due diligence.

At the trial on October 24, 2025, the Defendants were represented by Olivia Polihronis of McCague Borlack LLP.

Issues at Trial

The court was faced with the following issues at trial:

1. Did the Defendants owe the Plaintiffs a duty of care in relation to the listing and brochure representations?
2. Were the Defendants’ representations regarding the property, specifically the “double-car garage,” untrue, inaccurate, or misleading, and if so, were they made negligently?

Positions of the Parties

The Plaintiffs asserted that they relied on the listing agreement and marketing brochure, both of which described the property as having a “double-car garage,” in deciding to submit their offer to purchase. They argued that they were entitled to rely on the listing and brochure without undertaking independent verification and that, but for the alleged misrepresentation regarding the garage, they would not have purchased the property or would have paid less, claiming a difference in value between a one-car and two-car garage property.

They maintained that this representation was material to their decision to purchase the home, as they expected both of their ‘compact’ vehicles—a 2019 Mazda 3 and a 2019 Honda Civic—to fit within the garage.

The Plaintiffs further submitted that they were prevented from properly assessing or measuring the garage prior to closing due to the vendors’ items stored within it, although they acknowledged that they did not attempt to park their vehicles in the garage, nor did they seek assistance from their realtor or inspector in measuring the space, despite conducting multiple pre-closing visits and measuring other areas of the home.

In response, the Defendants denied any misrepresentation or negligence and maintained that the property was accurately and reasonably described as having a double-car garage. They relied on multiple sources of information in preparing the listing, including representations from the vendors, supporting documentation, and a condominium status certificate, all of which confirmed the garage description. The Defendants further led expert evidence confirming that they acted in accordance with the standard of care expected of real estate professionals and that their reliance on available information was reasonable. They emphasized that there were no red flags that would have suggested the garage description was inaccurate or misleading. In addition, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs failed to conduct reasonable due diligence, including failing to measure the garage or test whether their vehicles would fit prior to closing, despite having ample opportunity to do so.

Law

The Court reaffirmed the principle of caveat emptor by stating that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made, and conduct due diligence by thorough inspections and enquiries, prior to committing to a purchase.

In determining whether the Defendants made any negligent misrepresentations, the Court also reaffirmed the test to determine liability for this tort, stated in Doumouras v Chander 2019 ONSC 6056:

1.  There must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee.
2. The representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading.
3. The representor must have acted negligently in making the misrepresentation.
4. The representee must have relied, in a reasonable manner, on the misrepresentation; and
5. The reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in the sense that damages resulted.

Analysis

The Court accepted that a duty of care existed between the parties and that the Plaintiffs subjectively relied on the representation when making their offer, as the defendant realtor’s knowledge that the listing documents would be relied upon by prospective buyers was evidence of same.

However, the claim failed on the remaining elements.

On the evidence, the court found that the Plaintiffs did not establish that the Defendants knew or ought to have known the representation was false or misleading. The Defendants’ expert witness concluded that the Defendants acted reasonably and fulfilled their duty of care owed by a realtor in the listing of a property and gave evidence that, “all documents relied upon backed up the conclusion that the property had a two-car garage.” The Court stated that the Defendants did not simply cut and paste from a previous listing of the subject property, but that they reviewed the retrieved and reviewed relevant documentation in preparing the listing documents. Further relying on these comments, the Court also found that there was no evidence of negligence in the Defendants’ preparation of the listing materials.

The Court noted that the Plaintiffs’ signing of the Fulfillment of Condition is evidence that the Status Certificate was reviewed and accepted by the Buyers, which included documentation that the Defendants relied upon to determine that the property had a double car garage.

Therefore, there was no evidence that the Defendants intentionally misled the Plaintiffs, and that the property being listed and advertised as a two-car garage is the only reasonable conclusion.

With respect to the Plaintiffs’ reliance on the representation in the listing, the Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to conduct reasonable due diligence, including not measuring the garage or testing vehicle fit despite multiple pre-closing visits. The Defendants’ expert witness stated that the Plaintiffs had ample time to measure the garage prior to closing. The Court stated that if the Plaintiffs had concerns about their vehicles fitting in the garage, they could have made arrangements to measure the garage as they did with the other rooms in the home.

The Court emphasized that caveat emptor applied, and the Plaintiffs bore responsibility for failing to make reasonable inquiries, including whether their own vehicles would fit.

The mere fact that the Plaintiffs’ specific vehicles did not fit did not establish that the property was not a double-car garage. No evidence was presented showing that no reasonably available vehicles in Ontario could fit, undermining the Plaintiffs’ position.

The Court distinguished authorities cited as Krawchuk v. Scherbak, noting that this case involved clear “red flags” or known defects, which were absent here.

Outcome

The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs did not meet their onus on the balance of probabilities and the action was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the Defendants in the sum of $2,500.00.

This successful case reaffirms the principle of caveat emptor by confirming that property listings are not guarantees of precise fit or suitability and are not a substitute for verification by buyers prior to closing. In a real estate transaction, purchasers cannot rely to their detriment on listing descriptions without undertaking their own reasonable due diligence.