Labor v. Boudreau

Labor v. Boudreau

A reasonable inspector, given visible indicia (age, sump pump, cracked/bulging blocks and an unsheathed nook showing water damage), should have investigated further; the inspection was defective. The inspector, James M. Inch Jr., was personally liable because payment and invoicing were to him personally; LI Engineering was not liable. Foreseeable out‑of‑pocket repair costs were recoverable but loss on resale within a year was too remote and speculative. Judgment awarded to Claimants against Inch for partial repair costs and disbursements totaling $2,125.

Citation
2002 NSSM 3
Parties
Claimant: Peter Labor; Claimant: Sandra Labor; Defendant: Tim Boudreau; Defendant: James M. Inch, Jr.; Defendant: LI Engineering Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Negligence/property Inspection / Trial and Written Decision (adjudicator Reserved Judgment; Decision Issued)
Outcome
Judgment for Claimants against Defendant James M. Inch Jr.; claim against LI Engineering Limited dismissed; total judgment CAD 2,125 awarded to Claimants.
Legal Topics
Home Inspection, Professional Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Damages Foreseeability, Caveat Emptor
Source Language
English
Tort Negligence Contract Law Real Property Home Inspection Professional Negligence Vicarious Liability Damages Foreseeability Caveat Emptor

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Labor

Claimant

Sandra Labor

Claimant

Tim Boudreau

Defendant

James M. Inch, Jr.

Defendant

LI Engineering Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Negligence/property Inspection / Trial and Written Decision (adjudicator Reserved Judgment; Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant inspector performed a negligent home inspection
  2. 2 Whether liability rests with the individual inspector or the company (vicarious liability)
  3. 3 Appropriate measure of damages and foreseeability

Ratio Decidendi

A reasonable inspector, given visible indicia (age, sump pump, cracked/bulging blocks and an unsheathed nook showing water damage), should have investigated further; the inspection was defective. The inspector, James M. Inch Jr., was personally liable because payment and invoicing were to him personally; LI Engineering was not liable. Foreseeable out‑of‑pocket repair costs were recoverable but loss on resale within a year was too remote and speculative. Judgment awarded to Claimants against Inch for partial repair costs and disbursements totaling $2,125.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimants against Defendant James M. Inch Jr.; claim against LI Engineering Limited dismissed; total judgment CAD 2,125 awarded to Claimants.

Orders

  • Judgment against Defendant James M. Inch Jr. in the amount of CAD 1,400 (half of claimed basement repair portion)
  • Award of costs/disbursements to Claimants in the amount of CAD 725