An Ontario homebuyer who discovered an oil leak and extensive renovation concerns after purchasing an older house has lost her remaining claims against the property’s former owners. The court found that the evidence did not establish a breach of their knowledge-qualified warranty, negligent misrepresentation or negligent renovations.
In Hooey v. Hurst et al., 2026 ONSC 5843, released October 15, Justice Muszynski of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Tammy Hooey’s claims against Kymberly and Edwin Hurst after a three-day trial. Separate oil-spill claims against Robert Thompson and Parkland Fuel Corporation had already been resolved. Hooey was not seeking oil-spill remediation or furnace-replacement damages from the Hursts.
An older home and further inspection recommendations
Hooey agreed to buy the Highlands East home, built in 1956, in October 2019. The accepted price of $220,000 was later reduced to $215,000 to account for deck and shed deficiencies, which were outside the claims at trial. The sale closed on November 28, 2019.
Her home inspector identified concerns and recommended further assessment by qualified specialists. Hooey considered the issues minor and did not retain an electrician, plumber or other specialist to investigate. She also waived conditions requiring a wood-burning-unit certificate and a fuel-distributor report confirming that the furnace and oil tank were safe and operational.
After closing, an oil leak was identified and a municipal inspection raised numerous concerns. A January 2020 order required permits and inspections for renovations and upgrades. A restoration quotation obtained through Hooey’s title insurer totalled $147,916.03, and the insurer paid her $129,962.04 under the policy.
What the sellers had warranted
The purchase agreement said the covered systems would be in “good working order” on closing, but qualified the sellers’ assurance as being “to the best of their knowledge and belief.” The warranty survived closing and applied to the property’s condition at completion. The judge held that Hooey had to prove both the relevant defect and the sellers’ knowledge of it.
That wording mattered. The judge distinguished cases involving warranties without a seller-knowledge qualification. In assessing the systems’ condition, the court considered whether they were adequate for ordinary household use at closing.
There were no expert witnesses at trial. Photographs, municipal findings and trade reports documented concerns, but the judge found that they did not establish the required failure of the systems to function for normal household use. Building Code non-compliance alone was insufficient, particularly where the systems’ ages and the requirements applicable when they were installed were uncertain.
The heating system warranted closer attention. Because an oil-pump leak was discovered within days of closing, the judge inferred that the system was not functioning properly around that time. The next question was whether the Hursts knew of the problem.
A certified technician inspected and approved the heating appliances shortly before closing, with no leaks noted. His records also recommended replacing the oil pump if the buyer continued using oil. The judge was unable to determine whether Hooey had received those records before closing.
On the evidence as a whole, the court accepted that the Hursts believed the appliances were functioning properly. Hooey had not established a breach of the warranty. This was a finding about the sellers’ knowledge under the particular contract, despite the court’s inference that a heating defect existed.
Misrepresentation and renovation claims also failed
The court also found the heating-system representation inaccurate for the purpose of the negligent-misrepresentation claim. But that did not establish negligence in making it. The judge accepted the Hursts’ testimony and considered the recent technician’s certification in concluding that Hooey had not proven negligent conduct.
The judge separately found Hooey’s reliance unreasonable on the total evidence, including her decision not to pursue recommended investigations and her waiver of the fuel-distributor report. Those decisions formed part of the assessment of this claim; the reasons do not establish that waiving an inspection condition automatically defeats every claim over a defective property.
Citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s Winnipeg Condominium decision, the judge required proof of a serious safety risk caused by negligent construction and repairs needed to address that risk. The negligent-renovation claim encountered different gaps. Hooey had not established who performed most of the disputed work, when it was done, or that it created dangerous defects. For the kitchen, the judge preferred Mr. Hurst’s evidence that he had hired professionals, although the precise scope and timing of that work remained unclear.
The court accepted evidence from the Hursts and a previous owner that the basement was already finished before the Hursts bought the house in 1997. It also found no evidence that the Hursts had installed the HVAC system. These findings undermined the attempt to hold them responsible for the disputed renovations.
The judge added that Ontario’s Building Code generally regulates construction, renovations and changes of use, rather than requiring every existing building to be upgraded whenever the code changes. A building that complied when built or lawfully renovated does not become non-compliant merely because later requirements are stricter. The timing and applicable requirements had not been proven here.
Repair costs and responsibility had to be separated
Because the liability claims failed, the Hursts owed no damages. The judge nevertheless identified problems with the amounts sought. The $147,916.03 restoration quotation included oil-tank and replacement-furnace amounts that the judge understood were to be deducted from the claim, along with improvements Hooey requested beyond the necessary remediation.
Hooey also claimed $10,122 in rent for 14 months. The evidence did not show how much of that period was attributable to conduct by the Hursts, as opposed to the oil spill or additional renovation work. The judge would also have rejected the requested $30,000 in general damages because the extent of the Hursts’ contribution to the claimed loss remained unclear and Hooey had not pursued recommended investigations.
The decision illustrates the importance of the precise warranty wording and evidence connecting a defect, the responsible person and the loss claimed. It does not establish that the house was free of defects or that older homes are exempt from safety requirements.
Costs were left open. The Hursts may submit a costs outline by October 23, 2026, with Hooey’s responding submissions due November 2. The October 15 reasons made no costs award.
