2021 QCCQ 9289, 2021 QCCQ 9289

Hellwinkel c. Club Toiture inc. 2021 QCCQ 9289 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL "Civil Division" No: 500-32-707637-189 DATE: September 28, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ BRUCE HELLWINKEL Plaintiff v. CLUB TOITURE INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Armed with an inspection report, the Plaintiff claims the cost of repairing a roof installed by the Defendant 14 years earlier.

Failing for Defendant to do so, the Plaintiff claims the sum of $10,000. [ 2 ] The Defendant disputes the causes of the leaks. [ 3 ] The contract of September 2007, for the replacement of the roof [1] was concluded with the previous owner of the house, purchased by the Plaintiff in 2011. [ 4 ] Initially, the Defendant recommended that extra items be added to the roof such as aluminium, trim, facing and perforated soffit, to allow circulation of air, which was refused at the time. [ 5 ] The first complaint due to the infiltration of water occurs in March 2015.

The Defendant inspects the roof and concludes that the soffit was not properly ventilating the roof. The Plaintiff adds that someone did open the soffit which solved problems. [ 6 ] However, a second service call is placed in November 2015. At the time, Defendant’s employee notes on an “Estimate” [2] that a number of shingles had been damaged by an ax. [ 7 ] In January 2018, a second water infiltration occurs. The Defendant suggests that the inspection be done in the Spring.

At that time, the Plaintiff mandates Belgrade Enterprises Inc, a roofer, who provides a report on the condition of the roof, if the roof was completed according to the norms and practices, the reason for severe ice damming and other infiltrations and the corrections required [3] . [ 8 ] In

summary, this report concludes that the vent installed is insufficient for the size of the roof, the drip edge, the underlayment as well as the metal sizing/flashing were not properly installed and the plumbing vent was not properly insulated. [ 9 ] Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff sends his demand letter [4] requesting that all latent defects identified in the Belgrave report be corrected. [ 10 ] Following this letter, the parties met.

In his reply of October 4 th , 2018 [5] , the Defendant concludes that the water infiltration was caused by ice build-up which cannot be attributable to his work and any repairs to the roof could only be done once the Plaintiff properly insulates and ventilates the house. [ 11 ] The Defendant asks that the Plaintiff indicate exactly what corrective measures he requires. [ 12 ] Without providing an answer, the Plaintiff institutes his recourse.

THE ANALYSIS [ 13 ] There are several reasons why the Plaintiff’s recourse cannot succeed. [ 14 ] Belgrave’s inspection did identify a number of deficiencies, however it did not convince the Court that these deficiencies caused the water infiltrations, since no explanation was provided as to why the first infiltration only occurred 8 years after the Defendant installed the roof.

However, the evidence does show that at the time of this infiltration, shingles had been damaged by an ax. [ 15 ] Thus the infiltration cannot be attributable to the Defendant’s work. [ 16 ] The second infiltration occurred 3 years later, 14 years after the replacement of the roof by the Defendant. Both times, the

infiltration occurred during winter, because of ice build-up. This was caused by inadequate ventilation. When the roof was replaced, the Defendant did recommended that proper ventilation be added, but Plaintiff refused to proceed with the work. [ 17 ] Moreover, the 15 year warranty provided by the Defendant covers the labour only. Plaintiff claims $10,000, but provides no justification or basis for claiming such an amount. [ 18 ] It is fair to assume that it is the cost to replace the roof in its entirety, including labour and parts.

Whereas such a claim cannot be justified by the Belgrave inspection which only deals with minor deficiencies. [ 19 ] After 14 years, one year short of the expiration of the warranty, the claim is unfounded. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiff’s recourse; WITH COSTS in the amount of $256 representing the cost of the judicial stamp. ___________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q . Date of hearing: April 9, 2021