A Manitoba homeowner is taking the listing agent who sold her a property and his brokerage to court, alleging the home was substantially misrepresented in size, advertised at nearly three times its actual square footage.
In a statement of claim filed in the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba, Chantal Desjardins alleges real estate agent Derek Daneault of Royal LePage Prime Real Estate provided incorrect square footage information for a property she purchased in East St. Paul, about 20 minutes outside of Winnipeg.
The property was listed in March 2025 as offering more than 12,000 square feet of total space, including 9,891 square feet of living area and a pool house exceeding 4,900 square feet. Desjardins purchased the home for $1.05 million later that month and took possession in May 2025, after which she undertook extensive renovations, many of them completed by her husband, reads the claim.
The numbers don’t match, says buyer
The size discrepancy allegedly came to the surface that fall, when Desjardins sought financing to support the ongoing renovations.
A lender commissioned an appraisal as part of a financing application. That appraisal found the home’s living area measured just 3,332 square feet, roughly one-third of what had been advertised, and that the pool house was more than 1,000 square feet smaller than listed, reads the claim.
“Based on the appraisal and the substantially lower square footage, the lender determined that the requested financing exceeded acceptable lending parameters for a property of that value and declined Desjardins’s application,” reads the lawsuit, filed March 13.
“As a result of her reliance on Daneault’s misrepresentations of the house’s size, Desjardins was forced to personally fund renovations that she reasonably expected to finance and was unable to complete the scope of renovations necessary to achieve the projected enhanced value and resale potential.”
A flip project derailed
Renovation costs to date are estimated at approximately $950,000, with potential future work still required to bring the property into “saleable condition,” reads the statement of claim.
The lawsuit also cites the appraisal’s valuation of approximately $400 per square foot, or $2 million upon completion of the renovations.
“Desjardins reasonably expected that the house, once renovated, could be sold for approximately $3,956,400.00, and planned the scope of renovations on that basis,” reads the claim.
The filing seeks damages estimated at approximately $1.96 million, along with interest and costs, reflecting the lost financial benefit Desjardins expected from renovating and reselling the property.
Emotional distress, including financial stress, loss of time and energy invested into renovations and disruption to her family, which includes two children under the age of three, are also cited as part of the damages sought.
Allegations of misrepresentation
The lawsuit alleges the listing contained negligent misrepresentations and that the brokerage, named as a co-defendant, failed to properly supervise its agent.
“Daneault’s misrepresentations were made carelessly and/or without the proper investigation or verification that would reasonably be expected of a professional realtor in similar circumstances,” reads the claim. It further alleges Royal LePage failed to act “with the skill, competence, and diligence of a reasonable and prudent real estate brokerage.”
Both the agent and the brokerage are alleged to have breached duty of care and common law.
What could happen next
Jason Bryk, a real estate lawyer and partner at Pitblado Law in Winnipeg, says the case’s outcome is hard to predict and that a settlement is possible.
Bryk says what stands out about this case is the scale of the discrepancy. “I think what’s unusual about this case is the sheer discrepancy in size. For the life of me, I don’t understand how the buyer couldn’t identify that it was substantially smaller.”
He also raises questions about the agent’s due diligence. “What did the (sellers’) agent do to verify (the square footage)? And what steps did they take? Because I would be quite concerned about professional liability claims on their part.”
At the heart of the case, Bryk says, is the question of what legally constitutes a material misrepresentation, meaning one significant enough that a buyer would not have entered the contract had they had the correct facts.
“It’s impossible to know how the court would quantify that, but I think in a situation of a 3,000-square-foot home being advertised as a 9,000 square feet, there’s a likelihood it would fall into the realm of material misrepresentation,” he said.
A statement from Royal LePage Prime Real Estate provided to Real Estate Magazine said the brokerage “stands firmly behind the agent named.”
“We are aware of the claim that has been filed and will be addressing the allegations through the legal process,” it said.
None of the claims have been tested in court, and no statement of defence has been filed.

Courtney Zwicker is a digital reporter and associate editor for REM. Based in Atlantic Canada, she has over a decade of experience covering daily business news.
I don’t think we have all the details here. What was the square footage on the listing as i fail to see how any agent could be that far off. There is a big difference between total space, living area and square footage. The article does not offer the style of the house as well as some agents do get the square footage wrong when dealing with 4 level splits. However i would think that someone attempting such as large flip would be knowledgeable in square footage as anyone in the business can tell the difference between such a discrepancy. As well it is assumed that they viewed the property before buying . This sounds more like a buyer who could not secure the financing they thought they could and have remorse and are looking for any angle to get their monies back but until more details are known it is hard to tell. This should also be a lesson to those agents who use the term living space in their writeups. It is definitely deceptive to unsophisticated purchasers and could lead to problems down the road.
Something is amiss…
The square footage numbers in this scenario seem like lot size numbers.
Could there be a misunderstanding in that regard?
Having said that, could numbers have been quoted ambiguously to make a buyer feel like there’s a crazy bargain here? Could the buyer realize that they’re in over their head, and be looking for recourse…an alternative solution to get that flip-profit?
These are just rhetorical questions..
There are a few facts missing that would help with clarity, and understanding motives.
Sounds like feet were entered when the MLS upload page was in meters’ mode. Also, the equivalent of APS Clause #26 shall prevail, which basically states ‘you bought what you saw’.
Would a 9,900SF home sell for just $1M in March of 2025 or was it absurd to expect that? How many homes had the buyer seen before purchasing this one, and what were the stated sizes of those?
This case won’t sprout wings, won’t fly. Agent might get admonished for not doing a proper job with the listing but I put this down to clerical error of ft vs meters.
Both of you gentlemen raise good points, but with all due respect, would the price of 1.05 million reflect a property with square footage of over 9000 square feet combined with a pool house of 4900 square feet? I would venture to say, No, it does not. This purchaser could view the home herself, and I don’t care if you are an agent or not, not many could be “fooled” into thinking they were buying a 9000 square foot home when in fact it was only over 3,000. And it raises the question if she had her own realtor representing her. This would be one of the first things the realtor would tell her is that the square footage figures were way off. I think the point of these figures representing the lot size sounds quite plausible.
But it would seem buyers still do have some responsibility in the pursuit of buying a house, and recognizing the difference between a 9,000 square foot house and a 3,000 square foot house would seem to be one of them, in my view.
My question is: Where does the Buyer’s Agent fit into this story? Does he/she not have a responsibility to the Buyer? This doesn’t add up.
Would the provincial assessment notice not have the square footage. Both the buyer and seller realtor should have checked this. We have this in BC with BCAssessment. Seems like both are at fault with a misrepresentation to both their respective clients. Dis they check previous listings of the same property?
There’s no mention of a buyer’s agent in the article. Was it a double-ender, or was the buyer a self-represented party?
Too many unknowns…
In Ontario, we pay a few dollars and get an mpac report that shows the square footage of the buildings on the property. It’s just a part of the due-diligence…along with checking the complete history on the mls, registry reports, etc. etc.
There are too many ways to debunk, “I thought I was buying 9000 sq. feet.”
There’s definitely way more to this story, that we haven’t learned yet!