Thread: BC home inspector ruled 'negligent,' must pay nearly $200,000 to buyers

The Canadian Press: BC home inspector ruled 'negligent,' must pay nearly $200,000 to buyers

(CP) – 2 hours ago
VANCOUVER, B.C. — A home inspector has been ordered to pay nearly $200,000 to a North Vancouver couple who were told the house they wanted to buy only needed basic repairs.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled Imre Toth was "negligent" and provided "woefully inadequate" estimates after his inspection of the house in September 2006.
Toth's report estimated house repairs would only cost about $20,000, when in fact they totalled more than 10 times the amount at $200,000.

The judge found the buyers wouldn't have purchased the $1 million home had they been made aware of the extensive rotting beams and other structural problems.
The judgment says another inspector found water weeping from a wooden beam that he easily sunk his knife into, along with several cases of fungus growing.

Toth is a member of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (BC), a self-regulating association that licenses its members.
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Similar Threads:

• Should a Home Inspector do this?
• Home Inspector Licensing 2007 Scorecard
• Kaplan Advises Buyers: Don't Forget the Inspection to Avoid ... - American Digital Ne
• Home inspections key to helping buyers make sound decision - Chicago Daily Southtown
• I wanna be a home inspector - Upstate House

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

The Canadian Press: BC home inspector ruled 'negligent,' must pay nearly $200,000 to buyers

(CP) – 2 hours ago
VANCOUVER, B.C. — A home inspector has been ordered to pay nearly $200,000 to a North Vancouver couple who were told the house they wanted to buy only needed basic repairs.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled Imre Toth was "negligent" and provided "woefully inadequate" estimates after his inspection of the house in September 2006.
Toth's report estimated house repairs would only cost about $20,000, when in fact they totalled more than 10 times the amount at $200,000.

The judge found the buyers wouldn't have purchased the $1 million home had they been made aware of the extensive rotting beams and other structural problems.
The judgment says another inspector found water weeping from a wooden beam that he easily sunk his knife into, along with several cases of fungus growing.

Toth is a member of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (BC), a self-regulating association that licenses its members.
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Yup. On occasion folks miss stuff. Another one in thousands. This whole quoting cost for repairs thing is way above and beyond what a home inspector can do in such a short time in a home. We check every single system in a home and are expected to know everything about that system.

Fine. So we have to be very in depth in our knowledge. But to put a price tag on anything is just beyond a home inspector. His are of inspection usually ranges vast distances. His knowledge of what every contractor from high price to low price can be vast as well.

It definitely sounds like he did miss an item or 2. Like I sais.....Sh** happens

Originally Posted by John Kogel

This case most likely dates back to the unregulated days.

"after his inspection of the house in September 2006".

Seems right if regulation didn't begin in your Province as you said until April of this year.

Question for Canadians: is the Canadian press still prohibited from discussing/reporting on active court cases (criminal and otherwise) until they are resolved in court (and/or was this just a prohibition in a particular province and is it still prohibited)?

All cases are in a public forum, and open to the press/public and outcome of cases can be researched on various websites. The court can order a ban on publication or if the defendants are juveniles in which case the names of the young offenders cannot be published.

The inspector is licenced. No. 47186 and expires Oct. 2010 and is also a National Certificate holder (like that means anything).


The full transcript of the case can be found here.
It was not a case of failure to follow the SOP but a number of issues.

2009 BCSC 1515 Salgado v. Toth

1. Client did not have opportunity to read contract prior to start of inspection, nor particulars of limitation brought to their attention.

2. Providing prices which were substantially low and not required as per the SOP.

3. Failure to instill the need to hire experts for further investigation.

Also worthy of note is that this inspector holds a B.Arch which in my opinion would hold him to a higher standard or having special knowledge which would create a higher standard of care.

I hope the defendant launches an appeal in this matter.

And Nick Gromicko's brilliant advice on this case,

Moral of the story: Inspectors should stay away from repair estimates and consumers should stay away from non-InterNACHI members.

Wow, that is so deep considering the case had nothing to do with association membership.

... and from the newsreels...

CBC.ca Video

Here are more information from the Nov. 11 CBC News:

...The couple signed an agreement with Toth that limited the inspector's liability to the cost of his service, which was $450. But the judge found that Toth did not give the couple sufficient time to read the contract and did not do enough to highlight the clause limiting his liability. The court ordered Toth to pay the $192,000 difference between his estimate and the final repair bill....

Another Vancouver-area home inspector not connected to the case said he has never heard of a judgment that big, and hopes it leads to tougher regulations for the inspection industry."The average inspector is only there for three hours or less," ... "I'm of the view, and I don't represent the majority, by far, that a good inspection is a full day."

To be fair, let us see what the inspector and the association said on Nov. 12 newspaper:

Reached for comment, Toth said he plans to appeal the decision: "We are within our legal time to make an appeal and most likely it will happen." The home inspector said he won't comment any further on the matter as he hopes to take it back to the courts.

"We're sorry for everybody," said Owen Dickie, president of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors of B.C., of which Toth is a member. "We're sorry for the consumer. We're sorry for the inspector. It's really unfortunate." Dickie said the ruling shows, "the system is working properly. It's unfortunate this mistake was made but mistakes do happen and they happen in every profession."

Thanks Daniel,

I would like to know how regulation reduces chances of errors? Regulation would not have changed the inspectors fee, it would not have changed the manner in which he inspected or likely reported the findings. Besides this inspector was already a member of CAHPI at time of inspection, and clearly belonging to CAHPI did not change anything that I can see in this instance.

"What the regulation does is reduce the chances of error and at the same time if there are significant errors then there is the potential for compensation for consumers," Dickie said.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Thanks Daniel,

I would like to know how regulation reduces chances of errors? Regulation would not have changed the inspectors fee, it would not have changed the manner in which he inspected or likely reported the findings. Besides this inspector was already a member of CAHPI at time of inspection, and clearly belonging to CAHPI did not change anything that I can see in this instance.



Cheers,

He might of made even more mistakes?

One might think of the glass half empty but some might think of the glass half full. Without the CE classes, he might have made other mistakes at this job or past jobs. While we can comment on this job, there might have been other jobs that could have lead to a lawsuit if he didn't belonging to CAHPI (knowledge gained by belonging to CAHPI).

Just a possibility.

The inspector also has a B.Arch which theoretically could be argued that he had special knowledge, experience, education thus creating on his part a higher standard of care.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

And Nick Gromicko's brilliant advice on this case,

Wow, that is so deep considering the case had nothing to do with association membership.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

The inspector is licenced. No. 47186 and expires Oct. 2010 and is also a National Certificate holder (like that means anything).


The full transcript of the case can be found here.
It was not a case of failure to follow the SOP but a number of issues.

2009 BCSC 1515 Salgado v. Toth

1. Client did not have opportunity to read contract prior to start of inspection, nor particulars of limitation brought to their attention.

2. Providing prices which were substantially low and not required as per the SOP.

3. Failure to instill the need to hire experts for further investigation.

Also worthy of note is that this inspector holds a B.Arch which in my opinion would hold him to a higher standard or having special knowledge which would create a higher standard of care.

I hope the defendant launches an appeal in this matter.

Good points Raymond - I agree.

It's simply amazing how the INACHI crowd is claiming this as a victory. What is even more amazing is how this supreme court decision has anything to do with licensing. In my opinion it is about the tort of performing negligently in a number of areas.

As you indicated Raymond this has nothing to do with membership in association or lack thereof. Of course that is just the exact reaction one should expect if those feel its convenient to claim their inspectors are better than the rest of the world! Any home inspector that fails in their duty of care could easily become named as defendant from a poor performance on a home inspection.

Unfortunately, some of "that" crowd cannot get pass a simple understanding this decision has an impact on every home inspector in Canada, and possibly indirectly those south of our border.

In my opinion - this will task the self-funded insurance program of CAHPI in BC, and be just another serious claim of going after those with deep pockets. More so it could be interesting how this plays out in what the next steps may be - with regard to whether this becomes an issue with Discipline & Professional Practices claims against the member. He was a member of CAHPI-BC, but was not a National Certificate Holder at the time.

Mike Holmes at his best! Commenting on the BC home inspector case.

CBC Radio | The Current | Whole Show Blow-by-Blow


Listen to Part Two:


Home Inspections - Eadie

Before Manuel Salgado and Nora Calcaneo bought their house in North Vancouver, they hired a home inspector to check it out. The inspector advised them that some repairs would be needed and that the work would cost about twenty-thousand dollars. They bought the house for 1.1 million dollars. But it turned out that it was in worse shape than they had been led to believe. So they spent 200-thousand dollars fixing structural defects that weren't identified in the inspection and then sued their home inspector.

This month, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in their favour. The judge called the inspection "woefully inadequate" and ordered the inspector to pay the home buyers nearly 200-hundred-thousand dollars. The ruling could have major implications for home inspectors, as well as home-buyers and sellers.

Frank Eadie is the lawyer who represented Manuel Salgado and Nora Calcaneo. He was in Vancouver. The couple who bought the house declined to talk to us this morning. So did the home-inspector who did the inspection.

Home Inspections - Holmes

Mike Holmes has built an empire on his zeal for good quality workmanship and fixing other people's mistakes. He has also taken aim at faulty home inspections. He's the host of Holmes Inspection on HGTV. He's just launched a new magazine. And he runs his own home inspection business. Mike Holmes was in Toronto.

Home Inspections - Dickie

As we just heard, British Columbia is the only province where home inspectors have to be licensed. Owen Dickie is the President of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors, British Columbia. He's also the Chair of the association's Committee for National Standards of Practice. And he was in Kelowna.

No time to listen, Raymond, can you give us a brief summary?

Where is now the PCDS Disclosure- Property Condition Disclosure Statement - on the part of the seller's accountability? Tantamount to giving a tacit approval to any seller that it is ok to play unaware? play dumb? Conceal information or mislead? Don't tell me seller/owner has no knowledge of his property condition?

Where is now the accountability of the listing realtor agent? like who cares as long as he sells and gets his commission?

Where is now the buyer's realtor's 'due diligence' for his client buyer? or, same like the listing realtor agent - who cares? as long as he sells and gets his commission?

Where is now the 'caveat emptor' on the part of the buyer in any exchange transaction? (buyer's beware)

How convenient passing the buck in full to the home inspector doing his service for a measly fee exercise?

I am not vindicating the home inspector, let alone - okay there was an oversight on his part, carelessness or maybe a question of competency.. Afterall, E&O Insurance would defray whatever losses.

But actually, it is simply our CONSCIENCE - by listening to our heart, to the voice of our conscience, to the voice of God.

Let us not penalize the home inspector 100%. Mark 8:36

Roberto Noriega
Vancouver BC

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Mike Holmes at his best! Commenting on the BC home inspector case.

CBC Radio | The Current | Whole Show Blow-by-Blow


Listen to Part Two:


Home Inspections - Eadie

Before Manuel Salgado and Nora Calcaneo bought their house in North Vancouver, they hired a home inspector to check it out. The inspector advised them that some repairs would be needed and that the work would cost about twenty-thousand dollars. They bought the house for 1.1 million dollars. But it turned out that it was in worse shape than they had been led to believe. So they spent 200-thousand dollars fixing structural defects that weren't identified in the inspection and then sued their home inspector.

This month, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in their favour. The judge called the inspection "woefully inadequate" and ordered the inspector to pay the home buyers nearly 200-hundred-thousand dollars. The ruling could have major implications for home inspectors, as well as home-buyers and sellers.

Frank Eadie is the lawyer who represented Manuel Salgado and Nora Calcaneo. He was in Vancouver. The couple who bought the house declined to talk to us this morning. So did the home-inspector who did the inspection.

Home Inspections - Holmes

Mike Holmes has built an empire on his zeal for good quality workmanship and fixing other people's mistakes. He has also taken aim at faulty home inspections. He's the host of Holmes Inspection on HGTV. He's just launched a new magazine. And he runs his own home inspection business. Mike Holmes was in Toronto.

Home Inspections - Dickie

As we just heard, British Columbia is the only province where home inspectors have to be licensed. Owen Dickie is the President of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors, British Columbia. He's also the Chair of the association's Committee for National Standards of Practice. And he was in Kelowna.

Did the Purchasers Rely on any Misrepresentation?

[62] The legal principles regarding reliance by a purchaser when a home inspector is retained were dealt with in Hoy v Lozanovski [1987], 43 R.P.R. 296 (Ontario District Court) and were stated as follows:

However, if the purchaser chooses to not rely on the vendor and requests inspections, including professional inspectors (i.e. Home Inspection Service) then reliance for completion of the deal (the waver in this case) is shifted to the inspector whom the purchaser has chosen. The purchaser has relied on the inspection report not the vendor's silence, to formulate his decision whether or not to complete the deal...

Of course, as stated, if the vendor made representations to the purchaser or the purchaser's inspection that were fraudulent, then the responsibility for disclosing the latent defect would remain with the vendor...

[63] Absent fraudulent representations or concealment, when a professional home inspector's report is obtained then reliance has shifted to the home inspector.

[64] In this case, the purchasers obtained a home inspection report before waiving the condition. The report noted evidence of possible water problems and indicated that the type of repairs which have been effected and for which damages are claimed might be required.

[65] In view of obtaining an inspection report which indicates possible water problems any reliance the purchasers had made on the vendors statements on the VPIS document would have been transferred to the home inspector.

The other day I was browsing online through the B.C. Court of Appeal decisions looking for cases involving expert witnesses and guess who's name showed up?
That's right,.......Imre Toth.
Rather than bore the reader with the details, the following is the first paragraph of R. v. Imre Toth; R. v. Warren Christopher Michaels, 2004 BCCA 371

"[1] Mr. Toth and Mr. Michaels appeal their conviction by a jury of having conspired with four other persons named in the indictment to murder Ghazi El-Khodr, and of having attempted to murder him."

The following is the last paragraph;

"[58] It follows that I would not give effect to any of the grounds of appeal raised by these appellants. I would dismiss both appeals."

Maybe there's another 'Imre Toth' in BC but I doubt it.
What do you think the Society should do with somebody like this?

Probably another Toth.

There is a person up here who was convicted of defrauding the school board of $300K and is a home inspector.