2014 QCCQ 10376, 2014 QCCQ 10376

Conrad c. Construction Fairway inc. 2014 QCCQ 10376 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-125353-104 DATE: October 24, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ GERALD WAYNE CONRAD […]Waverley (Nova Scotia) […] Plaintiff v.

CONSTRUCTION FAIRWAY INC. 5858 de la Côte des Neiges, suite 602 Montreal (Quebec) H3S 2S1 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Gerald Conrad is claiming damages from Fairway Construction Inc. (Fairway), the builder, in 1968, of his home. [ 2 ] Mr. Conrad alleges that the ¨backfill¨ used under the cement floor slab of his home was contaminated by pyrite. He was obliged to have the pyrite removed prior to selling his home in 2010, at the purchaser's demand. [ 3 ] Mr.

Conrad claims some $ 11,005.71 that he limits to $ 7000 in order to fall within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division. [ 4 ] Fairway contests both the necessity to remove the backfill, as well as the damages claimed. THE FACTS [ 5 ] Mr. Conrad acquired his home in 1999. This home had been built by Fairway in 1968. It had changed hands approximately five (5) times before Mr. Conrad purchased it. Most of the past owners are either deceased or have not been retraced. [ 6 ] In 2010, Mr. Conrad put his home up for sale in preparation of his retirement and move to Nova Scotia.

A potential purchaser discovered pyrite when inspecting the property and rescinded his offer. [ 7 ] Mr. Conrad then accepted another offer to purchase, conditional to his removing the contaminated backfill and replacing the cement slab in the garage, as well as repairing certain cracks in the foundation elsewhere. [ 8 ] This work, initially evaluated at $ 14,278.68, ultimately cost less. According to Mr. Conrad, the contractor discovered that most of the backfill under the garage slab was in fact original earth. Therefore, a large

section in the center of the garage did not require removal. The contractor, after negotiation, accepted to reduce its price to $ 11,005.31. [ 9 ] Two experts were heard at trial. In his report dated August 3rd, 2010 [1] , François Hamel concluded that the pyrite swelling potential index (SPPI) under the garage slab was 7 and that under the basement slab was 17. The SPPI is an indication of the quality of the backfill and not a percentage of pyrite. Mr. Hamel stated that both these levels constitute a ¨low risk¨ of swelling.

This lead him to conclude as follows, concerning the basement slab: Considérant l'IPPG faible calculé, l'âge avancé du bâtiment (construit en 1968 selon les informations obtenues) ainsi que l'épaisseur plutôt faible de la pierre de remblai rencontrée au sondage S1 (12,0cm), il est improbable que des désordres significatifs associés au gonflement par la pyrite apparaissent ultérieurement .

Néanmoins, considérant le caractère gradué du remblai, nous ne pouvons totalement exclure que des désordres superficiels puissent survenir au niveau de la dalle si les conditions propices au développement du processus de sulfatation sont rencontrées, soit l'humidité, l'oxygène, la chaleur, etc. Toutefois, nous sommes d'avis que ceux-ci n'affecteraient pas les murs de fondation du bâtiment .

(Emphasis added) ( Exhibit D-1) And concerning the garage slab: Lors du relevé visuel, plusieurs fissures plutôt rectilignes et de type en étoile, d'ouverture fine à importante (ouverture maximale de 10mm), ont été observées en surface de la

partie visible du plancher de béton. Des dénivelés mineurs (amplitude d'environ 5mm) accompagnaient également ces fissures par endroits . Il est toutefois de notre avis, en fonction des connaissances actuelles et de l'expérience acquise par histoires de cas, que les désordres relevés ne seraient pas directement associés au gonflement sulfatique du remblai sous la dalle de béton . Ceux-ci pourraient s'être produits pour différentes raisons (déformations différentielles, retrait du béton, etc) que la présente étude ne permet pas de préciser.

Compte tenu de l'IPPG évalué en laboratoire ainsi que des caractéristiques de la pierre de remblai (nette, nature pétrographique, dureté élevé, porosité faible, etc), il est improbable que du gonflement significatif associé à la pyrite ne surviennent ultérieurement . (Emphasis added) And as a general conclusion: Par conséquent, aucune intervention ni travaux de réfection motivés par la présence d'une pierre de remblai potentiellement gonflante ne sont recommandés. (Exhibit D-1) [ 10 ] As for Mr. Guy Forest [2] , retained by Mr. Conrad, he evaluated the SPPI at 22 in the garage and at 28 in the basement.

This constitutes a ¨low to moderate¨ risk. Mr. Forest concludes concerning the basement: The sample of backfill from the basement has a swelling potential qualified as low to moderate (SPPI of 28). The damages observed on the concrete slab (cracks and heaving) could in part be related to the presence of pyrite, but there may also be other causes , which cannot be determined by the present study (subsidence, shrinkage, etc.). The geologist is of the opinion that some damages could evolve in the future limited to an aesthetic level.

By ¨damages¨ we man cracks with or without heaving on the concrete slab, without affecting the wall foundations . (Emphasis added) ( Exhibit P-3) and as to the garage: The sample of backfill from the garage has a swelling potential qualified as low to moderate (SPPI of 22). The damages observed on the concrete slab (cracks and heaving) could in part be related to the presence of pyrite, but there may also be other causes, which cannot be determined by the present study (subsidence, shrinkage, frost, etc.). The geologist is of the opinion that some damages could evolve in the future.

By ¨damages¨ we mean cracks with or without heaving on the concrete slab. Since the backfill is relatively thick, there could also be lateral thrusts on the wall foundations . (Emphasis added) ( Exhibit P-3) [ 11 ] His general conclusion is: It is presently not imperative to do repairs in the basement and the garage . The visual survey shows no important visible damages as at today (approximately 42 years) and it is possible that it continues this way . Your property may be eligible to the provincial grant program regarding pyrite.

We suggest you contact your municipality and ask them if it is the case. (Emphasis added) ( Exhibit P-3) [ 12 ] The discrepancies between the SPPI levels found by each expert is probably due to the different sites used for excavation. As well, Mr. Forest adds the following reservation to his report: The conclusions are based on the assumption that the nature of the samples taken and the conditions underneath them are representative of the crushed stones and the conditions underneath the concrete slab . (Emphasis added) ( Exhibit P-3)

THE LAW [ 13 ] Mr. Conrad has sued Fairway directly without suing his vendor. Although typically each purchaser would sue its vendor all through the chain of property, the Civil code of Quebec specifically allows the recourse as instituted: 1730. The manufacturer , any person who distributes the property under his name or as his own, and any supplier of the property, in particular the wholesaler and the importer, are also bound to warrant the buyer in the same manner as the seller . [3] (Emphasis added) [ 14 ] The presence of pyrite in the backfill under a floor slab is worrisome to vendors and purchasers alike.

However, its sole presence is not conclusive proof that the immoveable is affected by a latent defect: [28] Cela dit, la présence de pyrite dans le remblai de la fondation d'une construction ne constitue un vice caché que si la pyrite a commencé à réagir et s'accompagne d'un grand désordre, c'est-à-dire de dommages importants, ou qu'il y a probabilité d'un tel désordre. On ne saurait autrement parler d'un déficit d'usage qui rend l'immeuble impropre à l'usage auquel on le destine ou en diminue sérieusement son utilité. Le juge Walters l'exprime ainsi dans Petit c.

Ricard : [126] Comme le vice allégué en l'espèce découle de la présence de pyrite sous la dalle de béton du sous-sol, il importe de rappeler que la seule existence d'un matériau impropre n'est pas en soi un vice caché au sens de la garantie de qualité. Il faut en outre qu'il nuise à l'usage que l'on peut raisonnablement escompter d'un bien de pareille nature. L'existence d'un matériau impropre ou défectueux n'est suffisante que lorsque la menace sur l'usage du bien est grande et réelle.

Il appartient donc à l'acheteur de «démontrer l'existence de désordres importants ou la probabilité de désordres importants à l'avenir». (références omises) [4] [ 15 ] The relevant articles of the Civil code concerning latent defects are: 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. And: 1739. A buyer who ascertains that the property is defective may give notice in writing of the defect to the seller only within a reasonable time after discovering it. Where the defect appears gradually, the time begins to run on the day that the buyer could have suspected the seriousness and extent of the defect.

The seller may not invoke the tardiness of a notice from the buyer if he was aware of the defect or could not have been unaware of it. [ 16 ] In order to conclude to such a defect, the Court must be convinced that: 1) The alleged defect is serious and that it reduces the purchaser's use of the property; 2) It existed prior to the sale; 3) It is hidden notwithstanding a serious examination by the purchaser prior to the purchase; 4) The purchaser has notified the vendor of the defect, within a reasonable delay of its discovery. [ 17 ] According to the Civil Code of Québec , the burden of proving each of these elements lies on the shoulders of Mr.

Conrad: 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.

THE ANALYSIS [ 18 ] This debate here is whether or not a defect has been proven and if it was serious enough to reduce the use of the property by a reasonable purchaser. [ 19 ] Although the experts contradict each other on certain points, there are many more points of convergence than of disparity. [ 20 ] Also, both of the experts appear well versed in their science and have defended their opinions clearly. [ 21 ] This being the case, the preponderance of evidence is not in favour of Mr. Conrad. It was his burden to prove that the level of pyrite under the slabs was the cause of the alleged defects.

The expert testimony does not allow such a conclusion. The Court has no reason to prefer Mr. Forest's testimony to that of Mr. Hamel. In such a situation, the only possible conclusion is that preponderance has not been met. [ 22 ] There is more. A detailed study of Mr.

Forest's testimony shows that in fact, there is no serious defect. [ 23 ] As for the basement, the experts agree that the damages to the floor are aesthetic and that the foundation walls are not be affected by whatever pyrite there might be. [ 24 ] As for the garage, the experts agree that the cracking could have others causes than the quality of the backfill. It is ¨possible¨ that it will remain the same in the future. Therefore, it is only ¨possible¨ that it might evolve. [ 25 ] The only disagreement lies in the ¨probability of damages other then aesthetic¨. Mr.

Forest considers ¨Since the backfill is relatively thick, there could be lateral thrust on the wall foundation¨. Could be does not constitute a preponderance of evidence. [ 26 ] Also, this ¨possibility¨ put forward by Mr. Forest depends on his conclusion that the backfill is ¨relatively thick¨ and on the reservation he added to his report that ¨the condition underneath them are representative of the crushed stones and the condition underneath the concrete slab¨. [ 27 ] The facts show that the contractor found a large quantity of original earth under the garage slab.

This was particularly so in the centre of the slab where most of the cracks were found. Mr. Conrad stated that this earth did not need to be removed. [ 28 ] The Court concludes that Mr. Forest's hypothesis as to the quantity of backfill was not founded. This would explain why he added the reservation to his report. The facts are that the condition underneath the slab greatly varied.

This renders what he considered as a possibility to be even less so. [ 29 ] Whatever pyrite was present was not sufficient in quantity nor did it constitute a sufficient risk of swelling to be deemed a defect. [ 30 ] Also, the simple fact that the succession of owners of the home, built forty-two (42) years earlier, never suffered any limitation to their use, is confirmation that there is not sufficient seriousness, even if there were a defect. [ 31 ] Judge Richard Landry wrote the following concerning the seriousness required of the alleged latent defects: 1 º le vice doit posséder une certaine gravité L'acheteur doit prouver que le vice cache rend le bien «impropre à l'usage auquel on le destine» ou «diminue son utilité» au point où il «ne l'aurait pas acheté» ou »n'aurait pas donné si haut prix».

Pour être considéré comme un «vice», celui-ci doit engendrer un «deficit d'usage », c'est-à-dire qu'il doit, en tout ou en partie, empêcher un acheteur raisonnable de se servir du bien acheté pour l'usage auquel il est normalement destine (ex: infiltration d'eau, système de disposition des eaux usées inadequate, etc.). Cela élimine de la garantie les dégradations, imperfections ou anomalies qui ne privent pas l'acheteur de l'utilisation de ce bien .

Est également écarté le vice causé par la perte d'usage «normale», c'est-à-dire provoquée par l'usure, le vieillissement ou la vétusté prévisible (ex: toiture ayant atteint sa durée de vie utile). Est donc écarté le vice mineur ou de peu d'importance qui n'aurait pas empêché un acheteur raisonnable d'acquérir le bien ou n'aurait pas entraîné une réduction significative du prix convenu .

Pour apprécier la gravité du vice, le Tribunal peut tenir compte du coût des travaux de réparations, l'importance de la nuisance ou des inconvénients subis par l'acheteur, la diminution réelle de la valeur du bien et le temps que l'acheteur a pris pour le faire réparer. [5] (Emphasis added) [ 32 ] This reasoning applies both to the replacement of the garage slab and to the minor repairs done to the foundation wall. On preponderance, the Court concludes that the cracks were not caused by pyrite and that, in any case, they were not sufficiently serious to justify application of the legal warranty. [ 33 ] Mr.

Conrad was in the unenviable position of selling his home to a tough negotiating purchaser. This does not constitute a defect. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

DISMISSES the application; WITHOUT costs. __________________________________ SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. Dates of hearing: September 9 th , 2013, December 16 th , 2013 and June 5 th , 2014