2017 QCCQ 1939, 2017 QCCQ 1939

Tratt c. 6216951 Canada inc. (Prince Renovations) 2017 QCCQ 1939 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-149872-154 DATE: January 27, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ BRUCE TRATT Plaintiff v. 6216951 CANADA INC. d.b.u.n.

PRINCE RENOVATIONS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff seeks from Defendant the sum of $487.21 in reimbursement of the amount he has paid for the execution of a renovation contract which, according to said Plantiff, was not executed in accordance with the rules of the trade. [ 2 ] Defendant contests Plaintiff’s demand alleging that the work performed by its employees pursuant to the contract binding the parties was performed in a professional manner. [ 3 ] According to Plaintiff’s testimony, the contract binding the parties was a verbal one and was concluded in December 2012.

This contract related to work to be performed at his residence. [ 4 ] Plaintiff testified that, before concluding the contract, he had encountered water infiltration problems.

He asked Defendant’s president, Peter Yakimchuk, to advise him as to what was causing the said water infiltration and what repairs he suggested in the circumstances. [ 5 ] The repairs to be performed were those listed in the invoice dated December 17, 2012 (Exhibit P-1) sent by Defendant to Plaintiff. [ 6 ] Two and a half years after the execution of the contract, alleging that the water infiltration problem had not been solved and alleging that Defendant had not used the materials described in the invoice (Exhibit P-1), Plaintiff hired another contractor to perform additional repairs.

This contractor did not testify in Court and no written report was filed as evidence. [ 7 ] Furthermore, Plaintiff did not send Defendant a letter of demand in order to advise it of the situation and allow it to perform the repairs needed, if any. [ 8 ] For Defendant, Peter Yakimchuk testified that the work performed by his employees was executed in accordance with the terms of the contract and the rules of the trade. He also testified that he never guaranteed to Plaintiff that the repairs suggested by him were the solution to the problems of water infiltration [ 9 ] According to Mr.

Yakimchuk, he advised Plaintiff that the water infiltration could have been caused by problems relating to the roof, the windows, the wall assembly or the flashing below the roof. [ 10 ] This being said, in the present case, the burden of proof lies with Plaintiff. In this regard, articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. provide the following: 2803. A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim.

2804. Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. [ 11 ] The evidence adduced at trial does not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the work executed by Defendant was not performed in accordance with the standards of the trade or that the materials supplied by Defendant were not those described in the invoice (Exhibit P-1).

This, in itself, is sufficient reason to dismiss Plaintiff’s demand. [ 12 ] However, the evidence has also revealed that Plaintiff failed to send Defendant a letter of demand before having a third party contractor perform the repairs two and a half years after the execution of the contract concluded in December 2012. [ 13 ] Failure by Plaintiff to send the said letter of demand also constitutes reason to dismiss his demand. In this regard, author Vincent Karin has written [1] : « L’

article 1594 C.c.Q. précise que le débiteur peut aussi être constitué en demeure par une demande extrajudiciaire adressée par son créancier, lui enjoignant d’exécuter son obligation. Cette règle constitue en fait la règle générale de la mise en demeure, car il est à conseiller dans tous les cas d’adresser au débiteur une mise en demeure par demande extrajudiciaire, et ce, même si le débiteur est en demeure de plein droit. De cette façon, le créancier évite plusieurs ennuis et profite des avantages que lui procure la mise en demeure formelle.

La mise en demeure extrajudiciaire se fonde sur le fait que le débiteur est en droit d’évaluer s’il a failli à ses obligations; dans l’affirmative, elle lui donne la chance de les respecter à moindre coût. L’

article 1595 C.c.Q. prévoit la forme de la mise en demeure. Celle-ci doit être un avis écrit dans tous les cas, et doit indiquer un délai dans lequel le débiteur aura encore l’opportunité de s’exécuter. Le délai doit être raisonnable par rapport aux circonstances particulières de l’affaire et à la nature de l’obligation en question. Il appartient au tribunal d’évaluer le caractère raisonnable du délai d’exécution de l’obligation. À

titre d’exemple, l’acheteur qui découvre un vice caché affectant le bien vendu doit, sauf urgence, mettre le vendeur en demeure avant d’effectuer les réparations nécessaires, et lui donner un délai raisonnable afin de vérifier l’existence de ce vice caché. Ce n’est qu’à l’expiration de ce délai ou lorsque le vendeur manifeste clairement son intention de ne pas exécuter son obligation de réparation, qu’il pourra l’exécuter ou la faire exécuter par un tiers, et ainsi réclamer les coûts à ce dernier. »

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiff’s demand ; CONDEMNS Plaintiff to pay to Defendant the legal costs in the amount of $113.00. __________________________________ ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: January 23, 2017