2023 QCCQ 1906, 2023 QCCQ 1906

Soll. Solutions inc. c. Skotidakis 2023 QCCQ 1906 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL “Civil Division” No: 500-32-162630-216 DATE: April 19, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE DUGRÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SOLL. SOLUTIONS INC. Plaintiff v. ANGELO SKOTIDAKIS Defendant __________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Soll.

Solutions Inc. ( Soll. ), a company that designs, manufactures, and installs custom-made cabinetry and woodwork, claims $8,564.83 from Angelo Skotidakis for work which remains unpaid. [ 2 ] Mr. Skotidakis denies owing any amount to Soll. due to the poor quality of services and products, and undue delays in the project. [ 3 ] Mr. Skotidakis also filed a cross-application in which he claims $5,000 on the basis that the work performed by Soll. was below standard, and that corrections had to be made. He also claims damages for the stress and inconveniences related to the delays. [ 4 ] ISSUES

a) Did Soll. correctly perform its contractual obligations to support its claim for unpaid work?

b) To support his cross-application, did Mr. Skotidakis establish that Soll.’s work was below standard and that delays were not respected? ANALYSIS AND DECISION

a) Did Soll. correctly perform its contractual obligations to support its claim for unpaid work? [ 5 ] In civil matters, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff’s shoulders, in accordance with the principle provided in

article 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec ( C.C.Q. ), which states that “A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based.” [ 6 ] The Court decides on the balance of probabilities, [1] which means that the Court must determine what is more probable and plausible, rather than improbable and implausible. [ 7 ] In addition, when the evidence adduced is not sufficiently convincing, or if the evidence is contradictory and it is impossible for the judge to identify the truth, the party upon whom the burden of proof lies will lose. [2] [ 8 ] On July 18, 2019, Soll. and Mr.

Skotidakis entered into a contractual relationship which was based on a written estimate dated July 10, 2019. [3] [ 9 ] This agreement is a contract of enterprise by which a contractor undertakes to the client to carry out work for a price which the client binds himself to pay to him. [4] [ 10 ] According to the contract, Soll. was to provide cabinetry and woodwork for the entrance and fireplace of Mr.

Skotidakis’ new house. [ 11 ] The contract contains the following provision: “Manufacturing time is 8-10 weeks from the approval of this estimate, payment of manufacturing deposit and finalization of plans with all pertaining details”.

[ 12 ] Mr. Skotidakis signed the contract on July 18, 2019, and added the following handwritten note: “Tentative delivery: week of August 26th, 2019”. [ 13 ] Ms. Ioana Tataru, Soll.’s owner and representative, explained that she did see this note when Mr. Skotidakis returned the signed contract and she told him that she would do her best to deliver for the expected date, despite the usual 8-10 weeks delay stated in the contract. [ 14 ] This project ( Project 1 ) was validated by invoice number UCA-760 dated July 10, 2019, in the amount of $9,400.02. [5] [ 15 ] On July 18, 2019, Mr.

Skotidakis’ wife issued a cheque for this amount in favor of Soll., [6] which represented the initial 40% deposit required to initiate Project 1. [ 16 ] On August 13, 2019, an amended work order was produced [7] after Mr.

Skotidakis decided that he wanted to modify Project 1 to replace the cabinetry and woodwork for the fireplace and entrance by cabinetry and woodwork for four bathrooms and the laundry room. [ 17 ] Invoice number UCA-775 in the amount of $11,911.41 was then issued to reflect the parameters of the amended project ( Project 2 ). [8] [ 18 ] The parties then mutually agreed that the initial deposit of $9,400.02 received for Project 1 would serve as a partial down- payment for the 40% manufacturing phase of Project 2. [ 19 ] Mr.

Skotidakis alleges that the delivery date for Project 2 had to be the same as Project 1, the end of August 2019, because he was taking possession of his house on September 1, 2019. According to Mr. Skotidakis, this delivery date was an essential requirement of the contract. [ 20 ] Ms. Tataru testified that Project 2 was much more extensive than Project 1, and the handwritten note added by Mr.

Skotidakis on the Project 1 contract did not apply to Project 2, because the extent of the project would not permit Soll. to deliver by August 26, especially since the contract for Project 2 was issued only two weeks before, on August 13, 2019. [ 21 ] On August 21, 2019, Mr. Skotidakis’ wife issued a cheque in the amount of $11,911.41, which represented the initial 40% deposit required for Project 2. [ 22 ] As of August 21, 2019, Soll. had therefore received $21,311.43 from Mr. Skotidakis. [ 23 ] Ms.

Tataru explained that although Soll. could not deliver cabinetry and woodwork for the four bathrooms and the laundry room by August 26, her team and herself went over and above their obligations under the contract to speed delivery and meet the clients’ expectations. [ 24 ] While the manufacturing invoice was officially issued in December [9] and, as per the contract, the 8-10 weeks delivery delay would start to run at that time, Soll. fractioned the work throughout the fall of 2019 in order to deliver the rooms one by one as plans were approved. [ 25 ] Ms.

Tataru indicated that Soll. did not charge extra fees for fractioning the work, and they proceeded this way to offer a good service to the client. [ 26 ] As a result of this process, Soll. was able to install cabinetry and bathroom vanities throughout the fall, in September, October and December 2019. [ 27 ] On December 10, 2019, Soll. issued invoices numbers UCA-858 for an amount of $2,511.40 [10] and UCA-859 [11] for $2,977.85. [ 28 ] These amounts represent the 40% manufacturing phase for Project 2 that the deposit did not cover in full and the 10% delivery phase to be due upon delivery. [ 29 ] On March 9, 2020, delivery of Project 2 was fully completed. [ 30 ] On March 10, 2020, Soll. issued invoice number UCA-958 [12] in the amount of $3,075.58, which represented the final 10% plus additional expenses related to handles and edge pulls. [ 31 ] A total amount of $8,576.32 therefore remains unpaid, which represents the total cost of Project 2, minus the initial deposit for Project 1, and the second deposit for Project 2, plus additional cost of handles and edge pulls. [ 32 ] Mr.

Skotidakis denies owing any additional amount to Soll. He alleges that he has paid for the work performed by Soll., but he has also exercised his right to deduct from the payment an amount that is sufficient to meet his reserve for the defective work and poor workmanship. [ 33 ] While the Civil Code of Québec does allow a client to withhold from the price a sufficient amount until corrections are made, Mr. Skotidakis had nonetheless the burden to prove that defects actually existed. [13] . [ 34 ] The Court finds that Mr.

Skotidakis failed to meet this burden of proof. [ 35 ] To support his allegation that the final product is of poor quality, Mr. Skotidakis did file some photos [14] which in his opinion reveal the defaults and the poor quality of the products installed.

[ 36 ] However, Mr. Skotidakis admits that most of these photos were taken while the project was ongoing and that defaults were corrected by Soll. further to his complaints. [ 37 ] On the other hand, Ms. Tataru displayed to the Court photos of different bathrooms taken on September 20 and October 29, 2019, which show that cabinetry and vanities had all been properly installed. The only missing piece of the bathrooms were counters, which were not under Soll.’s responsibility. [ 38 ] Furthermore, Mr. Skotidakis contends that he did not accept the work of Project 2 without reservation on March 9, 2020.

With respect, the Court finds no evidence to support this allegation for the following reasons. [ 39 ] Ms. Tataru mentions that Mr. Skotidakis’ and his wife’s tone with Soll.’s team throughout the project was rather aggressive, but at no point in time did they ever mention that they did no intend to pay the invoices issued for the work performed. [ 40 ] On March 23, 2020, Ms. Tataru followed up with Mr. Skotidakis on the unpaid invoices sent on March 10, 2020, and mentioned that Soll. had tried to reach him without success. Mr.

Skotidakis’ wife replied that “[the] email was well received [, but that, due to] professional and personal uncertainties [, they were asking for] patience and deference.” [15] [ 41 ] On April 22, 2020, Ms. Tataru sent another email, acknowledging the challenging times related to Covid-19, but reminding Mr. Skotidakis that delivery payment had been due for a while. Mr. Skotidakis answered that “[he] will deal with this when [they] all get back”. [16] [ 42 ] The Court finds that Mr. Skotidakis was bound to accept the work when it was completed and that he did so without reservation. [17] [ 43 ] Mr.

Skotidakis failed to prove that there were existing defects in the products delivered that would justify that he withholds payment. [ 44 ] The Court also concludes that Soll. has met its legal obligations to act in the best interests of his client with prudence and diligence.

The evidence offered also showed that Soll. acted in accordance with usage and good practice and that it ensured that the work supplied was in conformity with the contract. [18] [ 45 ] As a result, Soll. has met its burden of proof to show that it is entitled to payment of unpaid invoices issued for work that was duly performed during Project 2.

b) To support his cross-application, did Mr. Skotidakis establish that Soll.’s work was below standard and that delays were not respected? [ 46 ] In his cross-application, Mr. Skotidakis alleges that Soll.: 1) neglected to answer his emails and phone calls; 2) failed to respect the delivery date; and 3) offered defective products and poor workmanship regarding the work, service, and material. [ 47 ] To support his allegation that Soll. failed to answer emails and phone calls, Mr.

Skotidakis filed various emails, [19] alleging that everything was complicated with Soll., that it did not deliver the products as expected, that the quality of the products was poor, and that Soll.’s team did not follow up on his demands. [ 48 ] This allegation is strongly denied by Soll., and Ms. Tataru underlines that Mr. Skotidakis only filed the emails that he and his wife sent, omitting Soll.’s answers. [ 49 ] Ms. Tataru filed the complete chains of emails [20] which reveal that each and every comment, request and complaint was addressed and dealt with by Soll. [ 50 ] Ms.

Tataru also mentioned that several emails start by “As per [our] discussion […]” which shows that Mr. Skotidakis’ phone calls, in addition to emails, were answered. [ 51 ] The second ground of the cross-application, which is related to the delays associated with Project 2, was previously discussed, and the Court has determined that there is no evidence that Soll. agreed to a delivery date of August 26, 2019 for Project 2. This project was confirmed on August 13, 2019 and involved four bathrooms and one laundry room.

An expected delivery date of August 26 for a project of this nature and extent would have been simply unrealistic. [ 52 ] Furthermore, the evidence confirms that most rooms were gradually completed and delivered throughout the fall of 2019. [ 53 ] Emails exchanged between the parties in November and December 2019 reveal that some adjustments were required after delivery, but the evidence shows that all requests were dealt with and answered, and that Soll. did its best to offer a good service to intransigent and demanding clients. [ 54 ] The Court therefore concludes that the allegations contained in Mr.

Skotidakis’ cross-application are not supported by the evidence, and that Mr. Skotidakis did not meet his burden of proof. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS Soll. Solutions Inc.’s application; CONDEMNS Angelo Skotidakis to pay to Soll. Solutions Inc. $8,564.83 plus the interests at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under

article 1619 C.C.Q. since the demand letter of May 7 th , 2020;

DISMISSES Angelo Skotidakis’ cross-application; CONDEMNS Angelo Skotidakis to pay to Soll. Solutions Inc. the legal costs of $231 for the demand. __________________________________ MÉLANIE DUGRÉ, J.C.Q. Hearing date: March 21, 2023