2016 QCCQ 9736, 2016 QCCQ 9736

Krichevsky c. Bilek 2016 QCCQ 9736 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-146243-151 DATE: September 6, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IGOR KRICHEVSKY and ANNA PAGLIAROLI Plaintiffs v.

DANIEL BILEK and SHOSHANA WISHINSKI Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiffs are suing defendants, in damages, for latent defects. [ 2 ] Defendants never lived in the house which they sold to plaintiffs, on March 31, 2008. The house was built in 1983. Defendant Daniel Bilek's parents lived in the house. Bilek's father died in 1999, but his mother lived in the house until her death in 2007.

In 2005, the 22 year old roof was redone by Sears Canada Inc., as appears from contract exhibit P-2. A new "Armour Guard" membrane, along with shingles and 2 «Venmar" vents, inter alia , were installed. It appears from contract P-2, that at the time of the work, Sears did not advise Bilek of the presence of "rotten or deteriorated wood" or "ventilation" problems. [ 3 ] The house was put up for sale in October, 2008, by the defendants, who inherited it.

The property listing specifically stated: " Addendum This sale is made without any legal warranty of quality, at the buyers risk. (…)" (sic) (exhibit D-3) [ 4 ] Plaintiffs had full access to the property for visits and inspection.

[ 5 ] Inspection report P-11, clearly states: "Roof: Asphalt shingles: Replaced 2005, 3 years old. Roof 100% snow covered, not inspected. Further inspection required. No access to attic, not inspected. Access hatch required and inspection.

Make an access hatch $300.00." (page 1 of 34) and at page 2 of 34: " ROOFING DESCRIPTION Sloped: • Asphalt Note : -Roof description: Low slope hip roof. - Valley: Yes, not visible snow covered. - Visible ventilation: 2 Maximums - Replaced last: 2005, 3 years old. - Color: Black - Average life expectancy if vented: 15 to 18 years. - Indication of warped or defective decking – Structure: Not verifiable, snow covered. - Indication of ice bridging: Yes. - Flashing conditions: Not verifiable, snow covered.

LIMITATIONS Roof inspection limited/prevented by: • Snow/ice/frost Note : Roof 100% snow covered Inspection performed : • As seen from ground level: RECOMMENDATIONS Sloped roofing Asphalt shingles Condition : • Roof 100% snow covered. Implication(s) : Not inspected. Task : Further evaluation Time : Immediate weather permitting." [ 6 ] Despite the fact that the roof was "not verifiable", that there was indication of ice bridging and that "further inspection" was required, but not carried out, plaintiffs proceeded to make a promise to purchase, which clearly states the following at par. 6.1 (a): 6.

DECLARATION AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE SELLER 6.1 DECLARATIONS The SELLER declares, unless stipulated otherwise hereinafter, that: (

a) he is not aware of any factor relating to the IMMOVABLE and liable to significantly reduce the value thereof, reduce the income generated thereby or increase the expenses relating thereto, except: This sale is made without any legal warranty of quality at the buyers' risk." (exhibit D-2) [ 7 ] Finally, at the closing before the notary, plaintiffs signed the deed of sale which clearly stipulated as follows: " WARRANTY

This sale is made with legal warranty as to ownership but without any legal warranty as to quality." (exhibit P-1) [ 8 ] While there were no water infiltrations in the house while Bilek's parents lived in it, plaintiffs started experiencing infiltrations on February 17, 2009. [ 9 ] This went on, sporadically, until October, 2014, when plaintiffs had the roof redone at a cost of $10,858.24 (invoice, exhibit P- 8). [ 10 ] It was not until May 30, 2014, however, that plaintiffs advised defendants that there had been water infiltration since 2009 (demand letter, exhibit D-1). [ 11 ] Be that as it may, plaintiffs' recourse is ill-founded for the following reasons. [ 12 ]

Article 1733 of the Civil Code of Quebec states: " 1733. A seller may not exclude or limit his liability unless he has disclosed the defects of which he was aware or could not have been unaware and which affect the right of ownership or the quality of the property. An exception may be made to this rule where a buyer buys property at his own risk from a seller who is not a professional seller." [ 13 ] In the matter of Hamel (Succession de) c.

Beaulieu , [1] the Court of Appeal decided as follows: "Arrêt [ 1 ] Il s'agit de l'appel d'un jugement accueillant une action fondée sur vice caché et condamnant l'appelante à payer à l'intimé acquéreur des dommages-intérêts de 78 256,25 $. [ 2 ] L'appelante est liquidatrice des successions de Jean-Paul Roger Hamel et Délina Babin qui étaient les propriétaires conjoints de l'immeuble acquis par l'intimé pour une somme de 55 000 $. [ 3 ] Ni l’appelante ni son frère n’ont jamais habité l’immeuble.

Ils étaient au courant d’une fuite d’huile survenue avant le décès de leur père, mais croyaient en toute bonne foi qu’il y avait eu décontamination complète. [ 4 ] Il y avait des signes physiques au sous-sol du remplacement du tuyau menant du réservoir à la fournaise. [ 5 ] La maison étant demeurée inhabitée pendant quelques années, la vente a été faite « aux risques et périls » de l’acheteur. [ 6 ] Il n'y a pas au dossier de preuve qui soit de nature à contredire ou même à mettre en doute les témoignages de l'appelante et de son frère qu'ils n'avaient absolument aucune idée, ni l'un ni l'autre, qu'il y avait encore des résidus d'huile dans le terrain, depuis 1999, et ce, à la suite de la réception de l'avis du ministère de l'Environnement que les travaux de décontamination étaient satisfaisants et qu'ils pouvaient être arrêtés. [ 7 ] Il n'y a pas non plus de preuve qui contredit l'expertise de l'ingénieur Larouche que la seule présence du tuyau sur le sol de la cave et de bouts d'autres tuyaux coupés aurait été plus que suffisante pour amener toute personne ayant une connaissance dans la construction à conclure qu'il s'agissait là d'une situation anormale, et pour susciter raisonnablement dans l'esprit de cette personne plusieurs interrogations et plusieurs questions spécifiques à poser au vendeur, questions qui ne furent en aucun moment posées à l'appelante non plus qu'à son frère. [ 8 ] Il n'y a pas de preuve au dossier qui soit de nature à soutenir la conclusion du juge de première instance, répétée à de nombreuses reprises, que l'appelante se serait rendue coupable de dol et de fraude dolosive en ne révélant pas, d'elle-même et sans être questionnée à ce sujet, qu'il y avait eu fuite d'huile, plus de trois ans auparavant, et que ceci avait contaminé le sol, qu'elle était, par ailleurs, bien fondée et justifiée par la preuve de croire décontaminé. [ 9 ] Enfin, à la lumière de la jurisprudence et en particulier de la décision de la Cour suprême du Canada dans Ferme de champignons de Lévis inc. c .

Cité de Lévis ( 1968 R.C.S. 96 , en p. 102) , une fois venue à la conclusion qu'il n'y a pas eu dol ou acte frauduleux, ni même négligence pure et simple de la part de l'appelante, la Cour voit difficilement comment l'intimé pourrait se libérer de la clause d'achat mettant celui-ci à ses risques et périls. Il s’agit alors, quant à lui, d’un contrat aléatoire.

Bref, malgré l'existence indiscutable d'un vice non apparent, quoique détectable, la Cour : ACCUEILLE l'appel, sans frais ; INFIRME le jugement de première instance ; REJETTE l’action de l’intimé, sans frais également." [ 14 ] In the case at hand, the Court is convinced that defendants had absolutely no knowledge of the defects outlined in pages 8 and 9 of Tri-Spec's report (exhibit P-5). [ 15 ] Plaintiffs had the burden of proof (arts 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q. ), and good faith is always presumed (art. 2805 C.C.Q .). [ 16 ] Not only did both defendants testify in a most credible and convincing fashion; but it also makes no sense that they would have intentionally mislead plaintiffs, as alleged in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the introductory motion.

In fact, defendants met plaintiffs for the first

time at the notary's office, for the closing, as their real estate agent handled the visits and negotiations leading up to the sale. [ 17 ] There is not an iota of evidence proving that defendants acted deceptively towards plaintiffs. If the roof was not properly redone in 2005, they most definitely were not aware of it. [ 18 ] Given that there was no fraud, deception or concealment, and given that plaintiffs bought the property without legal warranty and at their own risk, from defendants who are not professional sellers, the motion must be denied.

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiffs' motion, with legal fees in the amount of $190.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 27, 2016