2013 QCCQ 5290, 2013 QCCQ 5290

Evans c. Suk 2013 QCCQ 5290 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-126782-111 DATE: May 24, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARTINE L. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Katharine evans -and- Steve dubreuil Plaintiffs vs.

Yong suk -and- Jung in Han Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiffs claim $7000 from Defendants representing the costs incurred in February 2010 to remove the asbestos-containing vermiculite insulation lining the crawl space in the attic of their house and to install new insulation.

Plaintiffs argue that said insulation was a latent defect existing at the time they purchased the house from Defendants on November 3, 2004. [ 2 ] Plaintiffs claim they discovered the presence of the asbestos-containing vermiculite only on or about January 26, 2010, as a result of a pre-purchase inspection conducted by inspectors retained by a prospective buyer (Exhibit P-1). They readily admit that no written notice of their discovery or of their intent to conduct remedial work was given to Defendant prior to their letter of November 8, 2010 (Exhibit P-3). [ 3 ]

Article 1739 of the Civil Code of Quebec (" C.C.Q .") reads: " 1739. L'acheteur qui constate que le bien est atteint d'un vice doit, par écrit, le dénoncer au vendeur dans un délai raisonnable depuis sa découverte. Ce délai commence à courir, lorsque le vice apparaît graduellement, du jour où l'acheteur a pu en soupçonner la gravité et l'étendue. Le vendeur ne peut se prévaloir d'une dénonciation tardive de l'acheteur s'il connaissait ou ne pouvait ignorer le vice." " 1739.

A buyer who ascertains that the property is defective may give notice in writing of the defect to the seller only within a reasonable time after discovering it. The time begins to run, where the defect appears gradually, on the day that the buyer could have suspected the seriousness and extent of the defect. The seller may not invoke tardy notice from the buyer if he was aware of the defect or could not have been unaware of it." [ 4 ] Despite the use of the expression "may give" in the English translation of

article 1739 C.C.Q., it is well established that the intent of Parliament was to make the necessity to give notice, within a reasonable time from the discovery of a latent defect, a precondition to the exercise of a remedy by the purchaser against his vendor. [ 5 ] In this matter, the notice (Exhibit P-3) was tardy considering that it was given more than 6 months after the discovery of the alleged latent defect. Furthermore, in giving the notice after the remedial work, Plaintiffs have deprived Defendants of their right to ascertain the extent of their liability and violated

article 1595 C.C.Q. which reads:

" 1595. La demande extrajudiciaire par laquelle le créancier met son débiteur en demeure doit être faite par écrit. Elle doit accorder au débiteur un délai d'exécution suffisant, eu égard à la nature de l'obligation et aux circonstances; autrement, le débiteur peut toujours l'exécuter dans un délai raisonnable à compter de la demande. " " 1595. The extrajudicial demand by which a creditor puts his debtor in default shall be made in writing.

If the demand does not allow the debtor sufficient time for performance, having regard to the nature of the obligation and the circumstances, the debtor may perform the obligation within a reasonable time after the demand." Therefore, irrespective of whether the vermiculite was contaminated with asbestos or not and of whether such contamination amounted to latent defect or not, the Court has no other option but to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISS Plaintiffs’ action; CONDEMN Plaintiffs to pay the judicial fee of $ 148 to Defendants. __________________________________ MARTINE L.

TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 29, 2013