2018 QCCQ 7532, 2018 QCCQ 7532

Eichenbaum c. Inspections Joe Rodrigues inc. 2018 QCCQ 7532 COURT OF QUEBEC (Civil Division) CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-22-237179-174 DATE: October 3, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ EARL EICHENBAUM And ELLEN GROSS Plaintiffs v. LES INSPECTIONS JOE RODRIGUES INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiffs Earl Eichenbaum and Ellen Gross jointly claim from Les Inspections Joe Rodrigues Inc. (‘’Inspections Rodrigues’’) $90,782 in damages on the grounds that the latter committed a fault in the execution of a pre-purchase building inspection in that it omitted to mention in its report that the bricks of the property were defective. [ 2 ] Inspections Rodrigues contests the claim and argues that it properly executed the building inspection.

It asserts that the bricks were not defective which is why there was no mention of them in the inspection report. It adds that in any event, the damages claimed are exaggerated and not proven. Issues

a) Did Inspections Rodrigues commit a fault in the execution of the pre-purchase building inspection mandate?

b) If so, what damages were caused to the Plaintiffs by this fault? Context [ 3 ] On April 7, 2013, Mr. Eichenbaum signed a Promise to Purchase Agreement concerning a residential property located in Hampstead, Québec (“Property”). The Promise to Purchase was accepted by the seller on April 10. [1] [ 4 ] The Promise to Purchase was conditional upon Mr. Eichenbaum being permitted to have the Property inspected by a building inspector within 10 days. [2] [ 5 ] Accordingly, Mr.

Eichenbaum contacted Joe Rodrigues, the president of Inspection Rodrigues, to enquire as to whether he was available to carry out the building inspection. He confirmed he was and they agreed to meet at the Property on the day of the inspection. [ 6 ] On April 15, 2013, Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Eichenbaum met at the Property and entered into a contract whereby the Inspections Rodrigues agreed to carry out a pre-purchase building inspection of the Property (‘’Building Inspection Contract’’). [3] [ 7 ] On the same day, Mr. Rodrigues inspected the Property.

A few days later, he completed his building inspection report and remitted it to the Plaintiffs (“Inspection Report”). [4] [ 8 ] Since, from the Plaintiffs’ perspective, the content of the Inspection Report did not reveal the existence of a factor relating to the Property that could warrant the cancellation of the Promise to Purchase, the Plaintiffs went ahead with their plan to purchase the Property. [5] [ 9 ] A Deed of Dale was eventually executed on July 30, 2013 (‘’Deed of Sale’’) and the Plaintiffs moved in on or about August 1, 2013. [6]

[ 10 ] In early June 2013, prior to taking possession of the Property, Mr. Eichanbaum stopped by the Property with a friend who is experienced in home renovations. His friend pointed out that many of the bricks of the exterior walls of the Property were cracked. [ 11 ] This discovery worried Mr. Eichenbaum and so, on June 9, 2013, he communicated by email with Mr. Rodrigues of Inspections Rodrigues to express his concern. [7] He asked Mr. Rodrigues why the Inspection Report made no mention of the fact that 25% to 30% of the bricks are cracked. [ 12 ] On June 11, 2013, Mr. Rodrigues replied to Mr.

Eichenbaum that “there is nothing wrong with the bricks. They were made that way and are part of the look. There is no problem, therefore there is no need to mention them in the report.” [8] [ 13 ] Despite Mr.

Rodrigues’ reassurances, the Plaintiffs were still worried about the condition of the bricks and consulted with a brick mason to obtain more information. [ 14 ] On or about June 17, 2013, the Plaintiffs learned from the specialized brick mason that the cracks in the brick siding of the Property were indicative of a serious defect which will require the replacement of the brick siding at significant cost. [9] [ 15 ] On June 26, 2013, Plaintiffs sent Inspections Rodrigues a letter inviting it to attend the investigative tests they planned to carry out and informing it that if the tests confirmed the seriousness of the problem with the bricks, they would seek legal recourse against Inspections Rodrigues. [10] [ 16 ] By letter dated July 2, 2013, Inspections Rodrigues reiterated that there was nothing wrong with the bricks and that the cracks were purely a cosmetic issue. [11] Mr.

Rodrigues nonetheless attended the investigative tests. [ 17 ] On April 19, 2016, Mr. Eichenbaum filed his lawsuit against Inspections Rodrigues. [ 18 ] On April 4, 2018, a Modified Judicial Application Originating a Proceeding was filed. In this modified pleading, Mrs. Ellen Gross, the co-owner of the Property, was added as a Plaintiff and the quantum of damages was modified to reflect the Plaintiffs’ status as co-owners and co-Plaintiffs. Analysis and Decision

a) Did Inspections Rodrigues commit a fault in the execution of the pre- purchase building inspection mandate? [ 19 ] The Building Inspection Contract is governed by the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) and the Consumer Protection Act (R.S.Q., ch. P-40.1) [ 20 ] A building inspection contract is a contract which qualifies as a contract for services under the Civil Code . This type of contract is notably governed by

article 2098 C.C.Q. which states as follows: 2098. A contract of enterprise or for services is a contract by which a person, the contractor or the provider of services, as the case may be, undertakes to another person, the client, to carry out physical or intellectual work or to supply a service, for a price which the client binds himself to pay to him. [ 21 ]

Article 2100 C.C.Q. sets out the general obligations of a provider of services such as a building inspector, including the obligation to perform the service in accordance with the terms of the contract between the parties: 2100. The contractor and the provider of services are bound to act in the best interests of their client, with prudence and diligence.

Depending on the nature of the work to be carried out or the service to be supplied, they are also bound to act in accordance with usage and good practice and, where applicable, to ensure that the work carried out or service supplied is in conformity with the contract. Where they are bound to an obligation of result, they may not be relieved from their liability except by proving superior force. [ 22 ] In the present case, the Building Inspection Contract sets out the parameters of Inspections Rodrigues’ obligations.

It states in part as follows: This mandate confirms the engagement of Les Inspections Joe Rodrigues Inc. by the undersigned to perform a visual inspection of the above referenced building and provide a written report. This inspection follows the norms and practices established by the Quebec Association of Home Inspectors. [12] Those standards are available on the internet at: www.aibq.qc.ca. If there is any discrepancy between the verbal and written reports, the written report shall prevail.

The purpose of this inspection is to make a best effort attempt to identify as many apparent major defect as possible but we do not guarantee that all apparent major defects will be identified . The following important conditions and limitations apply: 1. This inspection is an opinion. The inspection is not a warranty, guarantee nor insurance. The opinions expressed in this report are based on our knowledge and experience. These opinions may differ from other inspectors and specialists. Any item mentioned for repair or maintenance needs to be further evaluated by the appropriate trade or expert. 2.

The undersigned [the client] understands that this inspection is not a technically exhaustive inspection requiring the hiring of plumbers, electricians, engineers, specialists, etc.

3. The inspection and the report are based on observations on the date of the inspections. The weather may affect these observations. The inspector is not responsible for any major defect, hidden defects, or problems visible after today’s date. (…) 13. A major defect is a defect that would significantly affect the value of the home. Since this is subjective, a major defect is a problem that would cost 1.0% of the value of the home. (i.e., this would be $2000 on a $200,000 home.). Minor defects are discussed in the report as a courtesy.

Any defect or condition mentioned should be further evaluated by a specialist. [Bold in the original; underling added by the Court] [ 23 ] A building inspector has the obligation to honour the terms of the contract it enters into as well as the obligations set forth in

article 2100 C.C.Q.

If he fails in this duty, he is liable for any bodily, moral or material injury he causes to his client and is bound to make reparation for the injury. [13] [ 24 ] Moreover, the courts have established that a building inspector has an obligation of means towards his/her client with respect to the obligations set forth in the contract or imposed by law, as opposed to an obligation of result. [14] This means that where the client alleges that the building inspector committed a fault, he or she has the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the building inspector did not use all reasonable means and did not act prudently and diligently with a view to obtaining the agreed upon result. [15] [ 25 ] This is consistent with the language of the Building Inspection Contract where it is written that “we do not guarantee that all apparent major defects will be identified.” In the Court’s view, this language merely establishes that Inspection Rodrigues’ obligation is of means and not of result. [ 26 ] A review of the case law shows that a building inspector owes the following duties to his/her client: • A pre-purchase building inspection is an inspection of the visible components of an immovable.

The purpose of such an inspection is to identify apparent defects which render the property unfit for the use for which it was intended or which diminish its usefulness or value; • When a building inspector notices an apparent defect which may not appear serious but which nonetheless could indicate the presence of a latent defect, he has the obligation to inform the client of this and recommend that he consult an expert in the subject matter; • The building inspector must see and identify in his report the defects which are visible or that he should have noted or witnessed; • If the building inspection indicates the presence of warning signs of a potential defect, the building inspector has the obligation to conduct a more in-depth inspection and refer the client to a specialist in the field if he has any doubts about the existence or seriousness of the defect; • The building inspector has an obligation to mention in his report all apparent defects that he has identified following a serious and diligent inspection of the property; • A pre-purchase building inspection is not an expert report in specific field related to immovable.

Rather, it is carried out by someone who has general knowledge of immovable. [16] The Inspection Report (P-4) [ 27 ] On April 15, 2013, Joe Rodrigues of Inspections Rodrigues met with Mr. Eichenbaum and Mrs. Gross at the Property. Mr. Rodrigues remitted to Mr. Eichenbaum the Building Inspection Contract after having completed the date and reference fields. [17] [ 28 ] Mr. Eichenbaum signed the contract and thereafter Mr. Rodrigues commenced his inspection of the Property, accompanied by his son.

The inspection lasted at least 45 minutes. [ 29 ] A few days later, Inspections Rodrigues remitted the Inspection Report to Mr. Eichenbaum and Mrs. Gross. [ 30 ] The Report is 66 pages in length and includes text and photos of the main components and rooms of the Property. The Report includes a 10 page

summary. [18] [ 31 ] The

summary itself is divided into three subsections: “Items Needing Immediate Repair”; “Items Requiring Improvement or Maintenance; and “Other Items Needing Attention and/or Suggestions”. [ 32 ] In the main body of the Report, those items needing “Immediate Repair” are indicated in red text and those items requiring “Improvement or Maintenance” are identified with blue text. [ 33 ] Plaintiffs find issue with the content of page 15 of the Inspection Report, which specifically addresses the exterior masonry walls of the Property. The relevant excerpts from page 15 of the Inspection Report are reproduced below: EXTERIOR 2.1 Masonry Walls Masonry wall material is brick. Weep holes are provided.

Weep holes are holes or gaps left open along the bottom row of bricks spaced about every 3-4 bricks. These holes allow for the drainage of water which may accumulate behind the bricks or stones. A lack of or blockage of these holes on homes built after 1960 could have caused damage to the wood structure on or above the foundation. 2.2 Masonry Wall Observations Some mortar joints have been previously repaired, inspect the brick walls annually and repair as needed. [ 34 ] There is no mention on this page of the fact that an important number of the bricks are cracked.

In addition, there is no statement in red text (or any colour for that matter) on page 15 of the Inspection Report indicating that any item of the masonry walls require “Immediate Attention”, nor is there blue text indicating that “Improvement or Maintenance” of the masonry wall is required. [ 35 ] Finally, the conclusion of the Inspection Report does not address the brick masonry work. [19] [ 36 ] Plaintiffs argue that the content of the Inspection Report, and more specifically the content of page 15, is misleading and inaccurate because Inspections Rodrigues omitted to identify in the Report that the cracks in the brick walls of the Property constitute an apparent defect.

Because of this omission, they claim that Inspections Rodrigues breached its obligation under the Building Inspection Contract. [ 37 ] Under the terms of the Building Inspection Contract and the law governing these types of contracts, Inspections Rodrigues had the obligation to raise in its report any apparent defects or “apparent major defect”.

It had the obligation to warn the Plaintiffs of the existence of potentially problematic issues with the Property and refer them to an expert in the field related to the defect. [ 38 ] In other words, a pre-purchase building inspector has an obligation to raise red flags and warn his client of apparent defects. [ 39 ] In the present case, did Inspections Rodrigues breach its duty as it relates to the cracks in the brick walls of the Property? [ 40 ] For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Inspections Rodrigues did breach its obligations towards the ¨Plaintiffs. [ 41 ] Inspections Rodrigues does not deny that the cracks in the bricks were apparent at the time of the inspection. [ 42 ] However, Mr.

Rodrigues states that he did not feel the need to mention this in the Inspection Report because in his view, despite the cracks, the brick walls of the Property were functional and were not defective. [ 43 ] Mr. Rodrigues testifies that when he inspected the Property, while he saw the cracks, he saw no other indices of a defective wall. He saw no bulging in the brick wall, no cracks in the foundation, no degradation of the mortar. As a result, he drew the conclusion that despite the cracks, the bricks were not defective and a cause for concern.

The cracking was purely cosmetic and this did not warrant inclusion in the Report. [ 44 ] Herein lies Inspections Rodrigues’ fault.

The evidence demonstrates that the cracks in the bricks were indeed a sign of an apparent defect, as this expression is interpreted in civil law, and of an “apparent major defect” as this expression is defined in the Building Inspection Contract. [ 45 ] Inspections Rodrigues misinterpreted the significance of the cracks and should have mentioned the cracks in its Inspection Report and recommended to the Plaintiffs to consult a masonry expert. [ 46 ] To begin with, it is useful to set out what constitutes a defect under Québec civil law [ 47 ] In ABB Inc. v.

Domtar Inc. [20] , the Supreme Court of Canada addresses the issue of what is a defect. According to the Court, the first criteria for determining whether a defect exists is the loss of use it causes. If the buyer of a good is unable to make practical and economical use of the good he purchased, this is evidence of a defect. [21] [ 48 ] The Supreme Court further adds that a material defect must be assessed in light of the purchaser’s ability to make normal use of the good. [22] [ 49 ] Likewise, the Building Inspection Contract defines a “major defect” as follows: 13.

A major defect is a defect that would significantly affect the value of the home. Since this is subjective, a major defect is a problem that would cost 1.0% of the value of the home. (i.e., this would be $2000 on a $200,000 home.). Minor defects are discussed in the report as a courtesy.

Any defect or condition mentioned should be further evaluated by a specialist. [ 50 ] This definition is consistent with the civil law definition of defect. [ 51 ] Do the cracks in the bricks constitute an apparent defect or an apparent “major defect” as the expression is defined in the Contract? [ 52 ] The Court heard the evidence of Mr. Ali Gorgi, an expert in civil engineering who was jointly retained by Plaintiffs and Inspections Rodrigues, and who provided expert opinion on the issue of whether the cracks in the bricks constitute a defect and what impact they had on the structural integrity of the Property.

Mr. Gorgi was the only expert heard at trial. His revised expert report dated October 11, 2017 was entered into evidence. [23] [ 53 ] Inspections Rodrigues examined Mr. Gorgi at trial and the Court heard clarifications with respect to his joint report. [ 54 ] The Gorgi Report as well as the testimony of Mr. Gorgi is clear and un-contradicted: the cracks in the bricks of the Property constitute a defect. In his Report, Mr. Gorgi writes:

6. RESULTATS ET RECOMENDATIONS : Considérant la présence de fissures dans une grande

partie de la brique du revêtement, l'eau est en mesure de s'infiltrer dans la brique à partir des fissures présentes, ce qui présente le risque d'un effet d'expansion par un effet de gel et de dégel durant l’hiver. L'eau ainsi infiltrée gèle durant l'hiver en augmentant son volume, ce qui exerce une pression sur la brique et peut augmenter la taille de la fissure et même, à long terme, briser la brique et compromettre son intégrité structurale.

Lorsque les briques sont trop endommagées, le mur de maçonnerie perd son intégrité structurale et ne peut plus être considéré comme étant sécuritaire d’un point de vue structural. Nous recommandons donc la démolition de l'ensemble du revêtement de briques et sa reconstruction selon les règles de l’art et les normes en vigueur. Veuillez noter que des fissures étaient déjà observables lors de l'inspection de préachat, qui fut effectuée par Les Inspections Joe Rodrigues.

L’inspecteur mandaté aurait dû mentionner cette problématique de fissure de la brique dans son rapport, et en indiquer les conséquences à long terme sur l'intégrité du mur, ainsi que la nécessité de refaire le mur dans l'avenir. Si cela n'entrait pas dans son champ d’expertise, il aurait dû recommander au client d'engager un expert pour évaluer cette problématique plus en profondeur. [24] ( sic ) [ 55 ] Mr. Gorgi’s testimony at trial confirmed what he already stated in his Report. The cracks in the bricks of the exterior walls of the Property will cause water to infiltrate behind the bricks.

This water will freeze and expand, and in turn cause a bulging of the brick wall, which will ultimately lead to a collapse or loss of integrity of the wall. [ 56 ] Although it was impossible for Mr. Gorgi to predict when the brick wall will lose it structural integrity, he nonetheless categorically stated that the loss of integrity was highly probable and that it would happen before the useful life expectancy of a brick wall.

In other words, the cracks in the bricks of the wall would cause the wall to deteriorate prematurely such that the brick wall would no longer be functional and would no longer serve its intended purpose. Ultimately, because of the cracks in the bricks, the brick wall will have to be demolished and rebuilt. [ 57 ] Mr. Gorgi estimated in his report that it will cost Plaintiffs $84,000 plus taxes to remove and replace the brick walls. [25] [ 58 ] The Gorgi Report and Mr. Gorgi’s testimony establish that the cracks in the bricks constitute a defect for civil law purposes.

The Plaintiffs will not be able to make practical and economical use of the Property they purchased because it is inevitable that they will have to replace the brick walls well before their normal life expectancy. Their normal use of the Property is impacted by the presence of the cracks in the brick walls. [ 59 ] Moreover, the cracks in the bricks also come within the definition of “major defect” as defined in the Building Inspection Contract. The Property was purchased for $850,000.

According to the Gorgi Report, the cost to correct the brick problem will be 1% or more of the value of the Property. [ 60 ] Therefore, the Court concludes that Inspections Rodrigues breached its obligations under the Building Inspection Contract when it failed to identify in its Inspection Report the problem relating to the cracks in the bricks. It considered that the cracks in the bricks were not serious, were purely cosmetic and thus did not warrant. The evidence shows that it was wrong in concluding that the cracks in the bricks were not indicative of a defect.

This error constitutes a contractual fault with regards to Mr. Eichenbaum. [ 61 ] Mrs. Gross is not a party to the Building Inspection Contract. However, Inspection Rodrigues’ contractual fault constitutes an extra contractual fault with regards to Mrs. Gross and establishes Inspections Rodrigues’ extra contractual liability towards her. [26]

b) What damages were caused by Inspection Rodrigues’ fault? [ 62 ] Plaintiffs allege that they have collectively suffered $85,782.12 in pecuniary damages as well as $5,000 in non-pecuniary damages (trouble and inconvenience, lost time and stress) as a result of Inspections Rodrigues’s fault. [27] [ 63 ] Mr. Eichenbaum’s claim for pecuniary damages is broken down as follows: i. Reimbursement of the inspection fees: $804.83 ii. Reimbursement of amount paid to CMS Canada for brick closing: $977.29 iii. Cost of repairing the brick masonry walls of the Property (50% of $84,000): $42,000.00 [ 64 ] Mrs.

Gross claims pecuniary damages of $42,000 which represents 50% of the cost of repairing the brick masonry walls of the Property [ 65 ] The Court will first assess the claim for pecuniary damages.

Cost to repair the brick masonry walls: $84,000-50% of this amount is claimed by each of the Plaintiffs [ 66 ] According to the joint expert evidence (Gorgi Expert Report), Plaintiffs will have to demolish the brick walls of the Property and rebuild them at a cost of $84,000. [28] [ 67 ] This is the only evidence that was adduced at trial relating to the cost to repair the defective brick masonry walls. [ 68 ] The assessment of the Plaintiffs’ material injury is governed by articles 1457 (Mrs. Gross), 1458 (Mr. Eichebaum), 1607 and 1611 of the Civil Code of Québec which provide as follows: 1457.

Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another.

Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature. He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody. 1458. Every person has a duty to honour his contractual undertakings.

Where he fails in this duty, he is liable for any bodily, moral or material injury he causes to the other contracting party and is bound to make reparation for the injury; neither he nor the other party may in such a case avoid the rules governing contractual liability by opting for rules that would be more favourable to them. 1607. The creditor is entitled to damages for bodily, moral or material injury which is an immediate and direct consequence of the debtor’s default. 1611. The damages due to the creditor compensate for the amount of the loss he has sustained and the profit of which he has been deprived.

Future injury which is certain and assessable is taken into account in awarding damages. [ 69 ] In Clouâtre v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company [29] , the Québec Court of Appeal asserted that compensation for damages is based on the principal of full restitution of the damages suffered. This means that the damages award must be such that the victim is placed in the same position as it would have been but not for the fault.

Moreover, the damages must be an immediate and direct result of the fault. [ 70 ] Finally, the loss sustained by the creditor must sometimes be depreciated to avoid over compensating the victim. [ 71 ] Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Plaintiffs have proven that they have collectively suffered a loss of $84,000 to replace the defective bricks. [ 72 ] That said, must this loss be depreciated? [ 73 ] According to the Gorgi Report, the useful life expectancy of a brick wall is equivalent to the life expectancy of the building. [30] [ 74 ] Mr.

Gorgi testified that replacing the bricks walls of the Property does not add value to the building because the original bricks should have been functional over the lifespan of the building, which he evaluate as more or less 100 years. [ 75 ] Based on this evidence, the Court concludes that this is not a case where depreciation should be applied to the cost of removing and replacing the bricks. [ 76 ] Accordingly, the Court establishes the loss suffered by Plaintiffs at $84,000.

Considering that the Plaintiffs are equal undivided co-owners of the Property, [31] the Court will award each $42,000 under this head of damages. Reimbursement of the fees paid to Inspections Rodrigues – $804.83 [ 77 ] Inspections Rodrigues’ charged $804.83 to Mr. Eichenbaum for the services provided under the Building Inspection Contract and the latter paid this fee. [32] [ 78 ] Since Inspections Rodrigues did not fulfill its obligations under the Building Inspection Contract, Mr. Eichenbaum should not have had to pay the service fee. [33] As this was a payment of something that was not due, Mr.

Eichenbaum is entitled to restitution of the fee it paid. [34] Amount paid to CMS Canada for brick closing – $977.29 [ 79 ] In the summer 2013, the Plaintiffs mandated a third party to carry out an inspection of the brick masonry walls of the Property. The inspection entailed creating puncture holes in the bricks to assess whether there was evidence of water infiltration and whether the membrane had been negatively affected. Mr.

Rodrigues attended these tests. [ 80 ] The Plaintiffs spent $850 (plus applicable taxes) to cover the holes created by the puncture test. [35] [ 81 ] This expense is a direct result of the fault committed by Inspections Rodrigues and qualifies as a loss for which Mr. Eichenbaum should be compensated. The Court will award him $977.29. Non-pecuniary damages – $5,000 [ 82 ] The Plaintiffs collectively claim $5,000 which they allege represents the trouble, inconvenience, lost time and stress caused by Inspections Rodrigues’ breach of contract. [ 83 ] Mrs.

Gross did not testify and therefore the Court has no evidence available to evaluate whatever stress or inconvenience she may have suffered because of Inspections Rodrigues’ breach. [ 84 ] Mr. Eichenbaum testified that this aspect of the claim covers the amount of time he spent to attend the inspections and to prepare the case against Inspections Rodrigues. He also adds it includes the aggravation he felt as a result of the defective bricks.

[ 85 ] As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Hinse v. Canada (Attorney General) [36] , the time and effort expended by a litigant to obtain justice are not generally recoverable. They are considered not to be caused by the defendant’s fault that gave rise to the litigation but to be inconveniences inherent in litigation. Hence, the Court cannot award damages for the time spent by Mr. Eichenbaum in preparing this lawsuit. [ 86 ] However, the aggravation and inconvenience and stress he suffered is compensable as a moral damage and the Court will award him $1,000 under this head of damages.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 87 ] GRANTS in part Plaintiffs’ Modified Judicial Application Originating a Proceeding; [ 88 ] CONDEMNS Les Inspections Joe Rodrigues Inc. to pay to Earl Eichenbaum $44,782.12 plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided for by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , calculated as of July 2, 2013; [ 89 ] CONDEMNS Les Inspections Joe Rodrigues Inc. to pay to Ellen Gross $42,000 plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided for by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , calculated as of July 2, 2013; [ 90 ] WITH LEGAL COSTS, including Plaintiffs’ share of the joint expert fees. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Mtre Eric Oliver Municonseil avocats Plaintiffs’ lawyer Mtre Kamran Chaudhry Étude légale de Me Michael R. Concister Defendant’s lawyer Date of hearing: April 5, 2018