A real estate transaction in Chelmsford, Ontario, has resulted in a significant financial penalty for a salesperson after a buyer discovered that her new rural property lacked the promised deeded access to a nearby lake and had a water supply so poor that she could not take a satisfactory shower. The Real Estate Council of Ontario has ordered Valmont Ernest Chouinard to pay a fine of $25,000 following an investigation into his conduct during the 2023 sale. The discipline decision, released on September 10, 2025, outlines a series of failures regarding the verification of property details and the protection of a client’s best interests during a transaction where the agent represented both the buyer and the seller.
The case centers on a property located at 2306 Vermillion Lake Road in Chelmsford. At all relevant times during the transaction, Chouinard was employed by the brokerage Caldwell Banker Charles Marsh Real Estate and was engaged in multiple representation, meaning he was acting as the agent for the sellers while simultaneously representing the buyer, Samantha Chaput. The dual representation role carries specific obligations under Ontario real estate law to ensuring that all parties are treated fairly and that their interests are protected with conscientious and competent service.
The initial marketing for the property painted a picture of a spacious rural lot with desirable amenities. The listing information provided by the brokerage on the local board listing service described the property size as being between one and roughly three acres. The advertisement also made specific claims about the utilities and features of the land. It stated that there was no known rental equipment on the premises and that the water supply came from a well. most notably, the public remarks section of the listing enticed potential purchasers with the claim that the home was situated on a huge lot that possessed deeded access to Vermillion Lake. Deeded access is a significant feature in real estate as it typically grants a permanent right for the property owner to cross another person’s land to reach the water, a right that transfers with the title of the property.
Relying on the representation services of Chouinard, the buyer submitted an offer to purchase the property on April 21, 2023. This initial agreement of purchase and sale included several standard protective conditions designed to safeguard the buyer against unforeseen defects. The contract was conditional on the buyer securing financing and conducting a home inspection. crucial to a rural property transaction, the agreement also included a condition allowing for a city water test.
The original agreement contained specific clauses regarding the water systems. One clause on page seven of the document stated that the seller warranted the pump and other equipment were performing adequately and were in good working order. Another clause granted the buyer the right to determine, at their own expense, that the property had an adequate and potable water supply. This clause was vital as it allowed the buyer to verify that the well could produce enough water for daily use and that the equipment was functional before finalizing the purchase. Additionally, the buyer and seller agreed to a clause confirming there was a deeded access laneway to Vermillion Lake, reinforcing the claim made in the listing.
However, the trajectory of the transaction changed significantly a week later. On April 28, 2023, an amendment to the agreement was drafted and signed by the parties. The execution of this amendment had the effect of making the agreement unconditional, meaning the buyer was now legally bound to complete the purchase without any further “out” clauses. The amendment deleted the conditions regarding financing and insurance. It also deleted the condition regarding a home inspection. most critically for the events that followed, the amendment deleted the water quality and sufficiency clause. This removal meant the buyer no longer had a contractual mechanism to test the well’s flow rate or quality prior to closing. While the amendment added several chattels to the deal, such as the fridge, stove, washer, dryer, and furnace, the clause confirming the existence of deeded lake access remained in the text of the agreement.
Issues with the accuracy of the property description began to surface shortly after the amendment was signed. On May 8, 2023, an appraisal report prepared for the mortgage lender was provided to the buyer. This report revealed a significant discrepancy regarding the size of the lot. While the listing had advertised the property as being between one and three acres, the appraisal indicated the property was actually 33,329 square feet, or roughly 0.7 acres. This was substantially smaller than the minimum size indicated in the marketing materials.
Further problems were identified during the requisition period, which is the timeframe before closing where lawyers review the title and other legal matters. The buyer’s real estate lawyer discovered that the claim regarding deeded access to Vermillion Lake was incorrect. Contrary to the listing and the clause in the agreement, there was no deeded access included with the title to the property. Additionally, the lawyer discovered that the propane tank on the property was not owned by the sellers but was a rental item, contradicting the listing information that indicated there was no rental equipment.
Faced with these discoveries, the legal representatives and parties attempted to salvage the transaction. The buyer’s lawyer was able to negotiate a right-of-way easement for lake access. However, this solution was materially different from the “deeded access” that had been promised. The negotiated easement was for a fixed period of twenty-one years less one day, rather than a permanent right attached to the land title. Separately, the buyer and the registrant reached an agreement regarding the costs associated with the rental propane tank. Despite these last-minute revelations and the discrepancies in the property description, the buyer chose to proceed with the transaction, and the sale was completed on June 6, 2023.
The consequences of removing the water inspection clause became apparent almost immediately after the buyer took possession of the home. Shortly after moving into the property, the buyer discovered that the water supply was critically insufficient for normal household activities. The flow was so poor that she was unable to do laundry or take a satisfactory shower, a defect that would likely have been identified had the water sufficiency condition remained in the agreement and a proper flow test been conducted.
Following a complaint, the Real Estate Council of Ontario opened an investigation into Chouinard’s conduct. The allegations focused on his failure to verify information and his failure to protect his client’s interests. It was alleged that Chouinard failed to advise the buyer of the significant risks associated with waiving the well inspection condition. By allowing the removal of the clause that permitted the buyer to test the water quantity and equipment, the agent left his client vulnerable to the very situation that eventually occurred. This failure was deemed a violation of the Code of Ethics requiring registrants to treat everyone fairly and honestly, to promote the best interests of their client, and to demonstrate reasonable knowledge, skill, and judgment.
The investigation also addressed the inaccuracies in the listing. Chouinard was found to have failed to properly confirm the property size, the terms of the rental equipment contracts, and the legal status of the lake access. These failures resulted in the misrepresentation of several key pieces of information in the advertisement viewed by the public and the buyer. Furthermore, he permitted a clause specifying that deeded lake access was included with the property to remain in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale even though that statement turned out to be false. This conduct was found to be contrary to the sections of the Code of Ethics regarding the prevention of error and misrepresentation.
The regulator determined that these actions constituted unprofessional conduct. A registrant is expected to use their best efforts to prevent error and misrepresentation in respect of a trade in real estate. By failing to verify the core attributes of the property such as the acreage and the legal nature of the water access, and by failing to counsel the buyer on the dangers of proceeding without a well inspection, the agent failed to meet the standards required by the profession.
In the agreed statement of facts and penalty, Chouinard admitted to the breaches of the Code of Ethics. The parties agreed to a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the consumer harm. Valmont Ernest Chouinard has been ordered to pay a total fine of $25,000. The payment schedule requires an initial payment of $5,000 by December 1, 2025, with the remaining balance due by September 3, 2026.
In addition to the monetary penalty, the discipline committee ordered a mandatory educational component to ensure future compliance and competence. Chouinard is required to successfully complete the course titled “RECO MCE Waterfront Properties” on or before March 2, 2026. He must provide proof of completion to the registrar within ninety days of finishing the course. This specific educational requirement addresses the complexities inherent in rural and waterfront transactions, such as understanding water potability, septic systems, and legal access rights, which were central to the issues in this case.
The decision by the Discipline Committee serves as a regulatory reminder of the duties owed by real estate agents to verify the information they publish and to advise clients against waiving essential protections. The agreed statement of facts concluded the matter without a full hearing, as the agent waived his right to contest the allegations and accepted the proposed penalty. The file is now closed, with the fines payable to the Real Estate Council of Ontario over the coming year.
