2014 QCCQ 4606, 2014 QCCQ 4606

Dupre c. 9215-9474 Québec inc. (Construction D.L. Dumas & Fils) 2014 QCCQ 4606 COURT OF QUÉBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF TERREBONNE TOWN OF SAINT-JÉRÔME «Civil Division» No: 700-32-026820-124 DATE: June 6, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PIERRE BACHAND, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CHRISTA DUPRE Plaintiff v. 9215-9474 QUÉBEC INC. faisant affaire sous le nom de Construction D.L.

DUMAS & FILS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is claiming 7 000,00$ following some construction works done at her house. Defendant is absent at the hearing and the case proceeds by default. [ 2 ] She entered into a contract with defendant for a partial renovation of her bathroom. Defendant was to supply all the materials and provide the workmanship for a total amount of 8 173,87$. [ 3 ] A very small part of this work was performed by defendant.

A problem occurred when one of defendant’s employees dropped a pipe in the bathtub, damaging it. Mr. Dumas proposed to have it repaired but plaintiff did not agree. She was paying for a new bathtub and didn’t accept a repaired one, which was her right. It was the building contractor’s duty to protect the bath during its works. [ 4 ] Plaintiff and Mr. Dumas went to a wholesaler to choose a new bath. The seller mentioned that it could be repaired and Mr. Dumas asked Mrs. Dupré what would happen if there was another scratch. Would she again want a new bath? The answer was yes. [ 5 ] This made Mr.

Dumas furious and he said that he was quitting the job. He recovered all his tools except one or two which he had forgotten and never went back to work. [ 6 ] Plaintiff had to turn to another building contractor since very little of the contract had been fulfilled although she had already paid an amount of 4 874,37$. Furthermore, two contractors told her that nothing was good for what defendant had done. [ 7 ] Plaintiff entered into a new contract with Renovco. The amount agreed upon was 8 738,10$ for the work and plaintiff provided all the materials. [ 8 ] The vice-president for Renovco, Mr.

Charbachi, testified. He is the one who went there for the first time and prepared the estimate. Too many mistakes had been done by defendant and nothing could be used. For these reasons, everything had to be ripped off. [ 9 ] For example, defendant had installed 3/8" plywood on the floor and only stapled it. Considering that ceramic tiles were to be installed on the floor, the minimum plywood required had to be at least 5/8" and had to be screwed. [ 10 ] According to Mr. Charbachi, the ceramics would probably have broken within a few months on this base.

Also, the gyproc around the bathtub had only been redone partially. Furthermore, the materials used were not acceptable according to the National Building Code. They rather installed cement boards around the bathtub. [ 11 ] Considering that the job was not done properly and had to be redone completely, plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount paid

of 4 874,37$. Also, part of what the plaintiff had to pay to Renovco was to scrap everything that was previously done by defendant. Considering the money paid for that purpose and also all the time lost and inconveniences suffered by plaintiff, her total claim of 7 000,00$ is justified. [ 12 ] Defendant’s cross demand was not proved and must be dismissed. FOR THE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 13 ] CONDEMNS defendant to pay to plaintiff an amount of 7 000,00$ plus interests at the annual rate of 5% and the additional indemnity provided for by

article 1619 of the Civil code of Québec , as of the summons. [ 14 ] THE WHOLE with judicial costs of 163,00$. [ 15 ] DISMISSES defendant’s cross demand. __________________________________ Pierre Bachand, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 5, 2014