Introduction
The purchase of real estate is often the most significant investment of a lifetime for many individuals. In this context, it is good practice to obtain a report on the condition of the building from an inspector, although it is not legally required[1] .
The information contained in the report will prove useful to the buyer in many ways, including:
1) They will immediately be aware of any apparent defects affecting the building and the risks associated with them;
2) They will be able to establish a maintenance plan for their property, depending on the degree of dilapidation of certain components;
3) They will budget for the planned work to avoid excessive debt resulting from the purchase.
4) They may be able to negotiate a reduction in the sale price of the property
However, despite these many advantages and benefits, a pre-purchase inspection report can also prove to be detrimental if the buyer does not follow its recommendations.
The decision in Anderson v. Turcotte[2], between Jean Anderson and Mélanie Laroche ("the buyers"), Dany Turcotte and Andréa Gosselin ("the sellers")[3], illustrates the consequences in practical terms.
Before analyzing the content, a brief overview of certain legal concepts is necessary.
The seriousness of the defect and the scope of the legal warranty
Article 1726 of the Civil Code of Québec provides for a legal warranty on the part of the seller to protect the buyer against latent defects affecting the goods sold. This warranty does not cover the mere presence of a defect, but rather the defective condition of the goods.
Case law has established several essential conditions for bringing an action alleging a latent defect. The defect must be serious, hidden, pre-existing and unknown to the buyer at the time of the transaction. The buyer must also report the defect to the seller within a reasonable time after its discovery.
That said, the fact that a product contravenes established standards does not automatically mean that it has a latent defect. Similarly, a product may comply with applicable standards but still have a defect if that defect genuinely compromises its use.
The decisive factor is the presence of a real and objective deficiency in use, as would be perceived by any reasonable buyer. This deficiency must render the item unfit for its intended use or diminish its usefulness to such an extent that the buyer, had they been aware of the defect, would not have purchased it or would not have paid such a high price. This criterion represents the severity of the defect, one of the essential conditions for a claim for latent defects.
The facts
On January 20, 2019, the buyers visit the sellers' property and are informed that it is a self-build project carried out by the sellers. That same day, they sign a promise to purchase the building, conditional on the completion of twelve items of work, with a retention clause of $15,000 in the event of non-performance.
A few days later, the buyers sign an inspection service agreement, with the mandate given to Simons Hinse ("Hinse"). Under this agreement, the buyers limit the mandate and refuse to have a comprehensive inspection of the building performed. The clauses of the agreement also specify the limits of the inspection:
[Our translation] The purpose of the inspection is not to, nor can it, uncover latent defects that may affect THE PROPERTY, but rather to detect apparent defects and signs indicative of problems that may substantially affect the integrity and use of THE PROPERTY, as well as to meet the obligation of prudent and diligent examination of THE PROPERTY imposed on a buyer by article 1726 of the Civil Code of Québec reproduced on the reverse side, all in order to preserve the CLIENT's rights in terms of recourse for latent defects against the seller.
On January 30, 2019, an amendment to the promise to purchase is signed by the buyers to include additional work. The other terms and conditions contained in the initial promise to purchase dated January 20, 2019, remain unchanged.
The buyers did not visit the property again until March 13, 2019, just before signing the deed of sale at the notary's office. As some work still needed to be done, the buyers withheld $15,000 from the sale price and purchased the property with a legal warranty.
Three years later, the buyers sue the sellers for latent defects and liability. The buyers allege that the latent defects are construction, design, and installation defects that are directly attributable to the sellers in their capacity as self-builders. They argue that they would never have purchased the property or paid such a high price had they known about the defects. The buyers are also suing Hinse and Inspection AP & associés Saint-Hyacinthe-Granby ("AP"), building inspectors and liability inspectors.
The sellers and Hinse dispute all of the buyers' allegations and claims. Hinse also asserts that it acted in accordance with industry standards at all times.
The decision
The importance of the inspection report
The Court emphasizes that the fact that the house was self-built should have alerted the buyers, especially since they appear to have acted on impulse. Although they hired a building inspector, which suggests that they took a prudent and diligent approach, they still had to consider the recommendations made in the inspection report. The fact that the house was self-built does not allow the buyers to ignore the recommendations.
The Court found that the buyers' behavior regarding the inspection report showed that they did not attach much importance to it. The evidence revealed that, in fact, they never used it. After receiving the report, they did not contact Mr. Hinse to obtain clarification on the warnings and recommendations made. They only contacted him several months later, and only in connection with a plumbing problem.
Their haste shows a certain degree of negligence, despite the involvement of a professional. When a buyer calls in an expert, the presence of clues indicating a potential defect imposes an obligation to conduct a more thorough inspection; otherwise, the defect could be considered apparent and therefore not covered by the warranty.
In this case, the buyers did not carry out the necessary verifications, which contributed to the dismissal of their amended statement of claim. This highlights the importance for a buyer to carefully read the inspection report and follow the recommendations made therein.
The scope of the pre-purchase inspection
In their claims, buyers frequently attempt to attribute responsibility for certain defects to the building inspector. However, as mentioned above, they had expressly refused a comprehensive inspection. The limits of the inspector's intervention are clearly established in the contract, which specified that it was a strictly visual inspection.
The Court points out that a pre-purchase inspection is not an expert assessment. It is a quick, non-thorough examination that does not allow for the detection of all potential defects, particularly those
that are hidden or inaccessible at the time of the inspection. The inspector therefore has no obligation to move objects.
These limitations are reiterated several times by the Court in its analysis of the alleged defects, and contribute to the rejection of several of them.
Author's commentary and conclusion
The Anderson decision illustrates the importance of the pre-purchase inspection report. It is not enough to simply read it; the buyer must also follow the recommendations mentioned and, if necessary, ask the inspector questions about any concerns raised.
The buyer cannot assume that all issues discovered in their property are hidden defects, particularly when these issues are not serious enough to render the property unfit for its intended use or significantly diminish its usefulness. Furthermore, in order to protect their rights, they cannot unilaterally carry out repairs according to their own standards without first allowing the seller to observe the defects and propose corrective measures.
In short, between vigilance at the time of purchase and timely reporting, the buyer's protection depends first and foremost on their own diligence.
[2]EYB 2025-566569 (S.C.).
[3] Anderson v. Turcotte, 2025 QCCS 963, EYB 2025-566569
Date filed: October 28, 2025
