2022 QCCQ 188, 2022 QCCQ 188

Ladouceur c. Côté 2022 QCCQ 188 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Civil Division" N° : 500-32-707302-180 DATE : January 14, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ALEXANDRA LADOUCEUR and VICTOR CMAC Plaintiffs c.

HÉLÈNE CÔTÉ Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiffs claim the cost of repairing the hidden defects discovered in the property purchased from the Defendant. [ 2 ] The Defendant argues that the presence of water infiltration and carpenter ants were disclosed to the Plaintiffs and discussed in the inspection report obtained prior to the purchase.

There were no hidden defects. [ 3 ] By her Cross-Claim the Defendant initially claimed damages of $15,000 on the basis that the Plaintiffs’ recourse was unfounded, however, she reduce this claim to $1,800, representing the fees paid to her expert Michel Coallier. The context [ 4 ] The Plaintiffs purchased from the Defendant a triplex in April 2016 and took possession on June 3 rd , 2016. [ 5 ] Prior to purchasing the property, the Plaintiffs retained the services of Serge Provost who provided his inspection report [1] . No further investigation was suggested by Mr.

Provost done by the Plaintiffs. [ 6 ] Barely one month after taking possession, the Plaintiffs noticed some water infiltration in the basement. They immediately reported this to the Defendant. [ 7 ] The Defendant retained the services of an expert who recommended that a gutter be installed on the roof, which was done; to no avail. [ 8 ] In August 2016, the tenant who had recently moved in the basement apartment, reported to the Plaintiffs that mold was present on the baseboard and drywall of the two bedrooms.

The analysis [ 9 ] The question in issue is if the water infiltration should qualified as a hidden defect? [ 10 ] Following the notice by the Plaintiffs that water infiltration had been discovered, the Defendant retained the services of Michel Coallier who inspected the triplex in October 2016 and provided his report [2] . [ 11 ] Mr. Coallier remarks that the triplex was constructed in 1916, and that the exterior wall of the building is in disrepair. The last repairs to the exterior was done in 1950, 66 years prior to the sale to the Plaintiffs.

He adds that the Plaintiffs should have expected important expenditures. [ 12 ] In fact, in the report by Serge Provost, at page 17, he highlights the defects in the brick wall and on page 18 the absence of weep holes (chantepleures). He recommends that a licensed contractor inspect the façade and a mason immediately install these weep holes to prevent water infiltration.

[ 13 ] These professionals were not retained prior to the purchase of the property or after. [ 14 ] Mr. Coallier also notes that the basement apartment was renovated, most probably following the backflow of the sewer that the Defendant reported in the Seller’s Declaration [3] , which occurred when the Glenn Hospital was built. [ 15 ] On page 7 of his report, Mr. Coallier states that the inspection of the foundation by Mr. Provost was incomplete. [ 16 ] At

section 5.1 Foundation, Mr. Provost states that no anomalies were visible . However Mr. Coallier refers to the photo included at

section 2.1 where, beneath the electrical meters, an important crack in the foundation is visible. According to Mr. Coallier this is the source of the water infiltration. [ 17 ] Questioned by the Court, Mr. Provost states that when conducting a visual inspection he never makes recommendations. He adds that when he inspected the immoveable the crack was not visible as the electrical room was filled. [ 18 ] This latter comment is false has the crack is clearly visible in the photo included in Mr. Provost’s inspection report. [ 19 ] It is only following the second mandate given by the Plaintiffs to Mr.

Provost that he did a water test and discovered the water infiltration, as reported in his second report [4] . [ 20 ] During the first inspection, Mr. Provost had no obligation of conducting a water test, however he had the obligation to report the crack in the foundation and recommend that an expert be retained to conduct a water test prior to the Plaintiffs purchasing the triplex. [ 21 ] The Court concludes that the water infiltration cannot be qualified as a hidden defect. [ 22 ] Moreover, the repairs consisted mostly of the installation of a french drain, including the necessary work on the grounds.

These expenses must be qualified as an improvement as no french drain had been installed around the property prior to the sale. [ 23 ] As for the carpenter ants, at

section 11.1 of the Seller’s Declaration, the Defendant reported the presence of insects. Less than one year prior to the sale, the Defendant retained the services of an exterminator [5] . She adds that these ants were found in rotten wood surrounding a window which was clearly visible and could have been reported in the inspection. [ 24 ] The Court concludes that no hidden defects was present prior to the sale of the property. [ 25 ] The Court prefers the report prepared by Mr. Coallier and will grant the reimbursement of the fees paid by the Defendant to this expert in the amount of $1,318.76 [6] .

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES the Plaintiffs’ recourse; GRANTS in part the Defendant’s Cross-Claim; CONDEMNS the Plaintiffs to pay to the Defendant the sum of $1,318.76, in capital, interest and costs. ________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q.