What is the scope of the duty of care owed by the City of Vernon to the owner of a construction project and to the neighbours of subsequent purchasers?

In City of Vernon v. Manolakos (1989) 41 B.C.L.R. (2d) 375 (S.C.C.), the court dealt with the liability of the City to both the owner and to neighbours and concluded that a duty of care was owed to both. As to the owners, the majority held that the failure of the owners and the contractors to give timely notice for on-site inspection while constituting contributory negligence did not complete absolve the City from liability. As to the neighbours of subsequent purchasers, all justices held that it was clearly not unreasonable for them to rely upon the City to ensure that the construction would not threaten their safety. Speaking on behalf of the majority, La Forest J. described the scope of the duty owed by the City as follows: It must be borne in mind that a municipality, once it has made the policy decision to inspect construction, is not bound to discover every latent defect in a given project, nor every derogation from applicable standards. Rather a municipality is only called upon to show reasonable care in the exercise of its powers of inspection. Accordingly, a municipality, whether the duty of care is owed to an owner builder or a third party, will only incur liability for such defects as it could reasonably be expected to have detected and to have ordered remedied. This is implicit in the decision of this Court in Kamloops v. Nielsen. (at p. 382)