2 total
Successful plaintiffs received sharply reduced costs after losing the central issue at trial.
Following trial, the plaintiffs recovered $18,645 against a home inspector for failing to report a sloping kitchen floor but were unsuccessful on their principal claim alleging differential settlement of the residence.
The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs exceeding $139,000, while the defendant argued that costs should be denied or awarded in its favour because the recovery fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and because the plaintiffs failed on the major issue at trial.
The court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to have pursued the action under the ordinary procedure and declined to deny costs under Rules 57.05(1) or 76.13.
However, given the plaintiffs’ lack of success on the central issue and proportionality considerations, their costs were substantially reduced.
Expert disbursements were disallowed and a global costs award was fixed with a set‑off for the defendant’s mid‑trial motion costs.
Home inspector found liable for failing to report a significant slope in the kitchen floor.
The plaintiffs purchased a home and subsequently discovered foundation settlement and a sloping kitchen floor.
They sued their home inspector for negligence, alleging failure to identify and report structural defects.
The court found that while the inspector was not negligent regarding the sub-surface soil conditions and differential settlement, he breached the standard of care by failing to effectively report the significant slope in the kitchen floor in his written report.
The plaintiffs were awarded $18,645 in damages for the cost to level the kitchen floor.
