2017 QCCQ 9573, 2017 QCCQ 9573

Kuznetsov c. Mladenov 2017 QCCQ 9573 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-149311-153 DATE: June 26, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ KONSTANTIN KUZNETSOV AND EVGENYIA KUZNETSOVA Plaintiffs v.

KRASSIMIR MLADENOV Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiffs claim from Defendant an amount of $23,369.39 as a result of the latent defects that, according to them, affect part of the roof of the immoveable property that they purchased from said Defendant on October 15 th , 2012. [ 2 ] So as to render the introduction of their claim admissible before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec, Plaintiffs have reduced their claim to the amount of $15,000.00. [ 3 ] In support of their claim, in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of the statement of claim filed into the Court record, Plaintiffs alleged the following: “3.

The sale was for the following property: In October 15, 2012 we bought a building from Mr. Krassimir I Mladenov. The building located on 2058 Grand Boulevard, Montreal, QC, H4B 2W8. The purchase was processed with certified real estate broker from Century 21 agency. Valentina Budnikova. The purchase transaction registered at the notary. Building was sold on legal guarantee condition. 4. The Plaintiff did not have the property inspected before purchasing it. 5. The defects on the property are as follows: At the beginning building operation we found the roof leaks. We informed Mr.

Mladenov about those circumstances but he ignored us. Finally we decided to renovate the roof in our own expanses. We invited licensed company to fix this problem. 6. The Plaintiff first noticed that the property was defective on or around November 1, 2012. 7. The Plaintiff did not notice the defects before that date, for the following reasons: Leaks are confirmed with calls of tenants and engineer report. Before the purchase we visited apartments located under damaged roof area, the ceilings were good looking with no damages, fresh painted. There weren’t any tenants there, who could mention about any problems.

We bought the building on legal guarantee condition. At the time of purchase Mr. Madenov declared that the roof recently renovated “Redone, new”. No RBQ license #, contact information, of the roof renovation company was provided, even we requested it. That problem existed at the time of the sale and before that. Because of those we didn’t have full and normal use and enjoyment of the property. If we have known about defects before we would not paid so high a price. The Vendor must have known about these circumstances prior the sale but didn’t advise us accordingly. 10.

The sale price of the property is $1,170,000.00.” (sic) [ 4 ] Defendant contests Plaintiff’s claim. In the contestation that he has filed into the Court record, he alleges the following: “1. The building was inspected before the closing date on two occasions.

a) by the purchasers Mr. K. Kuznetsov and his wife;

b) by inspector from CMHC because the financing was Insured by CMHC and it is mandatory for them to inspect it; There was no

remarks concerning the roof; 2. It was disclosed to the purchasers that following a leak in the bathrooms of apt. 413 and apt. 414 the roof was partially repaired. By the closing date it was not leaking; 4. It was disclosed to the purchasers that the roof was not renovated during my tenure (10 years) and at least 10 years before me which means that the roof was due for full renovation (reroofing); 5. By the closing date apt. 413 was rented; 6. The initially negotiated purchase price was $1200000 (please see D-1); 7.

Because of the condition of the roof the purchasers renegotiated the price to $1170000 – final price $30000 lower than initially negotiated;” [ 5 ] From the evidence adduced at trial, the Court retains, amongst other facts, the following ones. [ 6 ] Before coming to Canada, Plaintiff Kuznetsov was an engineer and a lawyer.

As for Plaintiff Kuznetsova, she was an engineer. [ 7 ] At the end of spring 2012, Plaintiffs, who were on the lookout to purchase an immoveable property, were informed that they could communicate with Valentina Budnikova, real estate broker with Century 21. [ 8 ] The services of Valentina Budnikova were retained by Defendant pursuant to an exclusive brokerage contract entered into on June 16 th , 2012 (Exhibit D-1-A).

In this contract, Defendant’s immoveable property was put up for sale for the price of $1,295,000.00. [ 9 ] After having communicated with Miss Budnikova, Plaintiffs were informed that Defendant’s immoveable property was on sale. The building in question, erected in 1954, is situated on Grand Boulevard Street, Montreal (N.D.G.).

It comprises 16 apartments. [ 10 ] According to Plaintiffs, with the documentary information provided to them by the real estate broker, Valentina Budnikova, without visiting the building, they presented an offer to purchase (Exhibit D-1) for the price of $1,200,000.00. [ 11 ] This offer was conditional to the satisfactory visit of the apartments by Plaintiffs (Clause 8.1 of the Offer) and to the satisfactory inspection of the building by an expert (Expert en bâtiment) within 10 days following its acceptance (Clause B2.4 of Annex B of the Offer). [ 12 ] The evidence has revealed that Plaintiffs visited and inspected the building, on their own, without being accompanied by a building inspector after which they presented an offer to purchase in the amount of $1,170,000.00 dated July 17 th , 2012 (Exhibit P-4).

This offer was accepted by Defendant on July 18 th , 2012. When they visited the building, they inspected its 16 apartments as well as the roof and, according to them, at that time, they were informed by Defendant that the roof had been redone, in part, in 2012. [ 13 ] More particularly, at the hearing, Plaintiffs acknowledged the fact that they were informed by Defendant that the roof had been redone in part (60%).

Furthermore, this was visible when they visited the building. [ 14 ] According to Plaintiff Kuznetsova, although, a partial repair of the roof appears to be unusual, Plaintiffs did not ask Defendant to explain why only part of the roof had been redone. [ 15 ] According to Plaintiff Kuznetsova, when Plaintiffs visited the building, apartment 413 was unoccupied.

Although, it had been repainted, they were not informed by Defendant that there had been previous damage in the apartment and that such damage had been caused by leakage from the roof. [ 16 ] Prior to the signature of the Deed of sale on October 15 th , 2012, the only inspector that visited the building was one mandated by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

This inspection was performed solely for the purpose of insuring the mortgage loan that Plaintiffs had requested from the National Bank of Canada. [ 17 ] The Deed of sale (Exhibit P-11) was signed on October 15 th , 2012 and Plaintiffs immediately took possession of the building. On November 1 st , 2012, they were advised by the lessee occupying apartment 413 that there was a water leak coming from the roof. [ 18 ] According to Plaintiff Kuznetsova, at that time, Plaintiffs tried to communicate by telephone with Defendant but they were unable to speak with him.

Furthermore, she testified that she faxed Defendant a letter. However, this letter was not filed into evidence at the time of the hearing. [ 19 ] From November 12 th , 2012 to the spring of 2013, according to Plaintiff Kuznetsova, the leaking was systematic. However, at that time, although Plaintiffs decided to have certain repairs done, the roof was not inspected by an expert in order to determine the cause of the leak. [ 20 ] More than two and a half years later, in June 2015, Plaintiffs decided to have the building examined by Mr. Motez Nached, a civil engineer employed by Inspectnorm.

This inspection took place on June 8 th , 2015. [ 21 ] After having examined the building, Mr. Nached prepared an Inspection Report (Exhibit P-6). In this report, regarding the roof, Mr. Nached wrote the following:

“Toit, solins et soffite 1. Remplacer le parapet rouillé de la toiture; 2. Réparer ou remplacer les soffites brisés au-dessous du toit; 3. Nettoyer ou remplacer le drain du toit et vérifier la pente de la toiture; 4. 60% de la toiture a été remplacée de l’année 2012, selon la déclaration de l’ancien propriétaire, Monsieur Krassimir I.

Mladenov; Comme la duré moyenne d’une toiture est de 20 ans, je vous conseil de faire vérifier de l’extérieur par un spécialiste pour remplacer cette toiture immédiatement car il y avait : - La moitie de cette toiture est en multicouche avec des gravies et la 2 e moitie est en membrane d’élastomère; - De la présence de mousses; - De l’accumulation d’eau sur le toit plat; - Présence du polyéthylène sur le toit; - Des signes d’eau au-dessous des soffites sur le côté droit; - Les membranes de l’élastomère ont été ondulés et fendillés; - Des solins métalliques ont été rouillés et la corrosion des solins métalliques; - Manquer des graviers; - Fléchissement de sections du toit; - Écarts importants entre les membres de l’élastomère; - Problèmes majeures de fuites d’eau dans les deux logements no. 413 et no. 414; - Infiltration d’eau au-dessous la porte extérieur de la toiture dans la cage d’escalier principal; » (sic) [ 22 ] After having received the report from Inspectnorm, Plaintiffs formally gave Defendant notice of the roof problem by sending him a letter dated September 18th, 2015 that was served upon him on September 21st, 2015.

As he did not reply to Plaintiffs’ letter, they proceeded to have the repairs done. [ 23 ] In this regard, Plaintiff Kuznetsova testified that the roofers contacted by Plaintiffs refused to do the work if only part of the roof was replaced. However, Plaintiffs obtained an estimate from Toitures Michel Sosnovski (Exhibit P-7-3) who accepted to replace part of the roof at the cost of $20,000.00 + taxes.

The part of the roof replaced by Toitures Michel Sosnovski was the part that had been redone by Defendant in 2012 following the leakage problem. [ 24 ] The estimate obtained by Plaintiffs from Toitures Michel Sosnovski is dated October 7 th , 2015 and, once the work was done, a bill dated October 28 th , 2015 (no. 903574) in the amount of $22,995.00 was issued. This bill was paid by Plaintiffs.

It is to be noted that no representative of Toitures Michel Sosnovski testified at the hearing. [ 25 ] The Offer to purchase, dated July 16 th , 2012, presented by Plaintiffs and accepted by Defendant, is in the amount of $1,170,000.00 but their first offer was $1,200,000.00 (Exhibit P-4). [ 26 ] As to the explanation given by Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding the reduction in the price of sale ($30,000.00), the Court retains the testimony of Plaintiffs to the effect that Defendant agreed to consent to the reduction if they were willing to request their mortgage loan from National Bank of Canada with which he had contracted his own mortgage.

This would allow him to be exempted from having to pay the penalty applicable for premature termination of the loan. [ 27 ] Plaintiffs’ explanation is clearly more plausible than that of Defendant who alleges that they reduced the amount of their offer by $30,000.00 in view of the condition of the roof.

This is unlikely as it was not mentioned in the accepted Offer to Purchase (Exhibit P- 4) and, in addition, Plaintiffs were unaware of the condition of the roof having chosen not to have it examined by an expert of their choice. [ 28 ] In the present case, Plaintiffs’ recourse in one in reduction of the sale price as the result of the existence of the latent defects alleged by them regarding the roof of the building purchased. [ 29 ] In this regard,

article 1726 C.c.Q. states the following: 1726 . The seller is bound to warrant the buyer that the property and its accessories are, at the time of the sale, free of latent defects which render it unfit for the use for which it was intended or which so diminish its usefulness that the buyer would not have bought it or paid so high a price if he had been aware of them.

The seller is not bound, however, to warrant against any latent defect known to the buyer or any apparent defect; an apparent defect is a defect that can be perceived by a prudent and diligent buyer without the need to resort to an expert. [ 30 ] This being said, before signing the Deed of Sale, Plaintiffs were aware or should have been aware that the building was erected in 1954.

Furthermore, they were aware of the fact that Defendant had performed a partial replacement of the roof (60%) in 2012, before the sale. [ 31 ] However, although Plaintiffs made their offer conditional to the examination of the building by a building expert and although they were willing to pay a sum of $1,170,000.00, they decided to go through with the sale without having the building inspected beforehand. [ 32 ] In the opinion of the Court, considering the age of the building (58 years) and considering that to their knowledge, only 60% of the roof had been redone, this should have prompted Plaintiffs, as prudent and diligent buyers, to have the roof examined by a building expert before concluding the sale. [ 33 ] Considering the contents of the report of Mr.

Nached, it is manifest that if this inspection had been performed before the sale, Plaintiffs would have been informed of the condition of the roof and of the defects affecting it. [ 34 ] Considering the preceding and in view of the principles enunciated by the applicable jurisprudence on the matter, the defects in the roof as identified by Mr. Nached, are not latent but apparent. Consequently, the legal warranty provided for by

article 1726 C.c.Q. does not apply. [ 35 ] Regarding the notion of “latent defect”, the Court refers to the judgement rendered by Justice Pierre Béliveau who, in the case of Laflamme v. Di Tiello-Bélanger [1] , wrote the following: 38. La Cour considère que la modification apportée par le nouveau Code a pour seul effet d'écarter cette théorie. En d'autres termes, on ne saurait ériger en principe qu'un vice ne peut être caché que s'il ne peut être décelé que par un expert. Mais cela ne saurait signifier que le recours à un expert n'est jamais nécessaire.

C'est d'ailleurs la thèse que semble avoir retenue le juge Jean Dionne dans l'affaire Vandycke et al c. Fridhandler et al ., REJB, 97-0859 (C.Q.) . 39. Selon le soussigné, tout est question de circonstances. Si un acheteur raisonnable et prudent ne décèle aucune anomalie lors de sa visite des lieux, on ne pourra, comme le précise l'

article 1726 in fine , lui reprocher de ne pas avoir eu recours aux services d'un expert. À l'inverse, le demandeur ne pourra soutenir que le vice est caché lorsqu'un acheteur raisonnable et prudent aurait, suite à son examen, requis les services d'un expert qui aurait alors découvert le vice. Interpréter l'

article 1726 comme signifiant que le recours à l'expert n'est jamais nécessaire aurait pour effet, pour reprendre les propos de la procureure de la défenderesse, de «déresponsabiliser l'acheteur». 40. Comme la Cour l'a indiqué au paragraphe 25 des présentes, une personne raisonnable aurait exigé une inspection. Cette démarche était donc nécessaire en l'espèce. Par contre, comme la Cour l'a mentionné au paragraphe 30 des présentes, cette inspection n'était pas conforme aux règles de l'art. [ 36 ] Furthermore, in the judgment rendered in the case of Lavoie v. Comtois [2] , Mr.

Justice André Rochon wrote: « L'acheteur prudent et diligent d'un immeuble procède à un examen visuel attentif et complet du bâtiment. Il est à l'affût d'indice pouvant laisser soupçonner un vice. Si un doute sérieux se forme dans son esprit il doit pousser plus loin sa recherche. D'une part, on ne peut exiger d'un acheteur prudent et diligent une connaissance particulière dans le domaine immobilier. D'autre part, on ne peut conclure au vice caché si le résultat d'un examen attentif aurait amené une personne prudente et diligente à s'interroger ou à soupçonner un problème.

À partir de ce point l'acheteur prudent et diligent doit prendre des mesures raisonnables, selon les circonstances, pour connaître l'état réel du bâtiment. Il ne saurait se replier sur son manque de connaissance si son examen lui permet de soupçonner une anomalie quelconque. Il faut donc examiner, suivant chaque cas d'espèce, la conduite d'un acheteur prudent et diligent. Antérieurement à 1994 on exigeait également de l'acheteur qu'il soit prudent et diligent.

Sans revenir à l'ancienne règle jurisprudentielle au sujet des experts, il est possible dans certains cas que le fait de ne pas recourir à un expert pourra être perçu en soi, comme un manque de prudence et de diligence. Le tribunal ne veut pas réintroduire dans notre droit une exigence spécifiquement exclue par le législateur en 1994. Par ailleurs, cette exclusion ne saurait être interprétée comme autorisant l'acheteur à agir de façon insouciante ou négligente.

Cet acheteur ne fera pas preuve de prudence et de diligence alors qu'il existe des indices perceptibles pour un profane, s'il ne prend pas les moyens (y compris le recours à des experts le cas échéant) de s'assurer que l'immeuble est exempt de vice… » [ 37 ] Finally, the Court refers to the judgment rendered in the case of Patenaude v. Trépanier [3] in which, Justice Jocelyn Rancourt wrote : [58] L’

article 1726 du Code civil du Québec impose au vendeur de garantir à l’acheteur que le bien vendu est exempt de vices cachés. Les vices cachés doivent rendre le bien impropre à l’usage auquel il est destiné ou en diminuer l’utilité d’une façon telle que l’acheteur n’aurait pas acheté le bien ou n’aurait pas payé un prix si élevé, eût-il connu l’existence desdits vices. [59] Le vendeur n’est pas tenu de garantir les vices cachés lorsqu’ils sont connus de l’acheteur. De même, la garantie ne tient pas lorsque le vice est apparent.

Il est apparent s’il peut être constaté par un acheteur prudent et diligent sans avoir besoin de recourir aux services d’un expert. [60] Le texte se lit ainsi : Le vendeur est tenu de garantir à l’acheteur que le bien et ses accessoires sont, lors de la vente, exempts de vices cachés qui le rendent

impropre à l’usage auquel on le destine ou qui diminuent tellement son utilité que l’acheteur ne l’aurait pas acheté, ou n’aurait pas donné si haut prix, s’il les avait connus. Il n’est, cependant, pas tenu de garantir le vice caché connu de l’acheteur ni le vice apparent; est apparent le vice qui peut être constaté par un acheteur prudent et diligent sans avoir besoin de recourir à un expert. [61] Quelles caractéristiques définit l’acheteur prudent et diligent ?

Le Tribunal retient que l’acheteur prudent et diligent doit : • examiner de façon complète et attentive l’immeuble; • être à l’affût d’indices pouvant laisser soupçonner l’existence d’un vice; • investiguer de façon plus poussée lorsque l’examen et les indices laissent soupçonner l’existence d’un vice. [62] Il est juste de dire que le Code civil du Québec n’impose aucune obligation pour l’acheteur de retenir les services d’un inspecteur préachat ou d’un expert. [63] Toutefois, en présence d’indices laissant soupçonner l’existence d’un vice, l’acheteur prudent et diligent demandera à un inspecteur préachat d’examiner le bâtiment.

Les connaissances de ce dernier, contrairement à l’acheteur profane, lui permettront de détecter les vices et de formuler les recommandations appropriées.

À défaut de ce faire, l’acheteur pourra être considéré par le Tribunal comme imprudent et non diligent. [64] Le Tribunal est d’avis que Guy Patenaude n’agit pas en acheteur prudent et diligent lorsqu’il acquiert la propriété de Jean-Marie Trépanier le 4 septembre 2008. [ 38 ] Regarding the alleged false representations made by Defendant to Plaintiffs concerning the condition of the roof of the building, the Court concludes that the evidence adduced at trail, testimonial and documentary, does not establish conclusively that Defendant misrepresented the state of the roof at the time of the purchase. [ 39 ] Consequently, Plaintiffs’ demand based on the alleged existence of latent defects and false representations of Defendant cannot be maintained.

WHEREFORE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES plaintiff’s demand, with judicial costs in the amount of $190.00. __________________________________ ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. Dates of hearing: April 4th, 2017 and June 19 th , 2017