A patent defect is a problem “discoverable through a reasonable inspection”, and — unlike a material latent defect — an Ontario seller generally has no duty to volunteer it at all.
Under caveat emptor, “caveat emptor generally applies — buyer bears the risk” for anything a reasonable inspection would reveal. An as-is clause reinforces exactly this allocation: it does “meaningful work” against “problems a reasonably careful inspection would reveal” — but it does not extend to a known latent defect the seller stayed silent about, and it does not “give a seller cover to make false statements about the property.” Ontario's own sources are candid that “the line is not always clear” between a patent and a latent defect — the test is whether a reasonably careful inspection, not a specialist's, would have caught it.
The practical consequence is that a patent defect shifts the diligence burden onto the buyer, not the seller. A buyer who skips or shortcuts an inspection cannot generally recover for a problem a competent inspector would have flagged; a buyer who has one done, and the inspector misses something reasonably discoverable, has a claim against the inspector rather than the seller.
A visible crack running across a driveway and a furnace showing its age on the data plate are both patent defects — apparent on a walkthrough or a standard home inspection, so a buyer who skipped the inspection has little basis to complain afterward. Contrast that with knob-and-tube wiring hidden behind finished drywall that an ordinary inspection would not expose without opening the wall — that is a material latent defect question instead, governed by the seller's actual knowledge rather than the buyer's diligence.
See also: Material latent defect, Limitation period on a claim, the full glossary.
A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether AI pays for itself here.
