2012 QCCQ 11048, 2012 QCCQ 11048

Gharibian c. Sutherland 2012 QCCQ 11048 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-125928-103 DATE: November 1, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ VAROUG GHARIBIAN and ALEXANDRU FLAMIND Plaintiffs v.

INGA (INGEBURG) SUTHERLAND Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Varoug Gharibian and Alexandru Flamind claim a sum of $1,575.00 from Inga Sutherland for the repairs and refinishing of the front stairs of her home. [ 2 ] Mrs. Sutherland contests alleging that the work was not correctly done and required to be done once again. [ 3 ] The parties agreed verbally to a fixed price contract in the amount of $1,500.00 for labour, plus disbursements .

The granite used to refinish these steps was bought and provided by Mrs. Sutherland. No plans or even basic sketches were made for the project. [ 4 ] The work consisted of removing the old stone finish of the stairs, repairing the cement structure and applying the new granite finish on the landing, the stairs and the risers. [ 5 ] The work was done while Mrs. Sutherland was away for two months vacation. [ 6 ] On her return, she was not satisfied with the results. In a letter dated November 1 st , 2010, Mrs.

Sutherland summarises the situation: The major layout errors include the following: • The stairs and the landing are not centered on the door (figure1). The landing extend 5-1/4" on the left side of the door and 3-3/4" on the right side, a noticeable 1-1/2" difference (figure 2&3); • The steps were set over an existing structure that was properly aligned with the door.

Consequently, the new steps and landing which were not centered on the door are offset from the base that they are resting on; • Since the steps are uncentered they do not properly align with the walkway (figure 1); • The stairs and landing do not yet have the handrails re-installed but the offset will become even more visible when they are; • The risers of the stairs are not of equal height and very from 8-1/4", 6", 6-1/4" and 6-1/2" respectively from bottom to top. The difference between the first two steps is dangerous and a potential hazard.

Basic knowledge of stair construction dictates that these be equal (figure 4). (Reproduced as drafted) [ 7 ] This description is accompanied by numerous photographs of the work as well as a detailed plan including all the relevant measurements. [ 8 ] In her testimony, Mrs. Sutherland alleges that Gharibian and Flamind made themselves out to be experts. She therefore believed that she did not have to point out to them that she expected the measurements of stairs and risers to be equal. She is aware however, that

demolishing the entire structure would have been more costly. [ 9 ] Mrs. Sutherland has filed the estimate of another contractor for the same work, submitting a price $1,975.00 plus taxes. She also filed the bill for the actual repairs done to the steps for the amount of $1,200.00. The railings were then installed, with the help of a neighbour. For this Mrs. Sutherland incurred some $300.00 in expenses (including a gift to a neighbour to thank him for his help). [ 10 ] Mrs.

Sutherland demanded of Gharibian and Flamind in a letter of November 5 th , 2010, that they correct their faulty workmanship, no later than May 15 th , 2011. She forwarded her detailed sketch of the staircase and landing as well as numerous photographs as evidence of their default. Gharibian and Flamind refused to correct their work. [ 11 ] In defence of the allegations of shoddy workmanship, Gharibian and Flamind basically testify that they did the best they could, and that a new staircase would have cost considerably more. Also, they indicate that if Mrs.

Sutherland had requested a new staircase they were not equipped to do such work. ANALYSIS [ 12 ] The evidence clearly shows that the workmanship of Mr. Gharibian and Mr. Flamind was unacceptable. They represented themselves to Mrs. Sutherland as experts in the field. At trial, they again underlined their experience in similar renovation projects. They made grievance of Mrs. Sutherland that she did not supply plans or insist they be made. This argument is unfounded since they were hired for their expertise in the field. [ 13 ] The measurements supplied by Mrs.

Sutherland as well as the photographs clearly establish that the steps, risers and landing are not of equal dimensions. As Mrs. Sutherland stated the staircase is clearly off-center. She also stated that certain repairs to the structure were unfinished and the cement used on the granite was crumbling. [ 14 ] The evidence demonstrates that the repairs done by Mr. Gharibian and Mr. Flamind were not acceptable. The necessity that stairs and risers be of near to identical size (if not identical) is obvious. This constituted an obligation of result on the part of Plaintiffs.

If this was not an obligation of result, the evidence amply demonstrates that the shortcomings in their work renders Mrs. Sutherland refusal to pay their fee justifiable. [ 15 ] The repairs of Mr. Gharibian and Mr. Flamind's faulty work cost Mrs. Sutherland a further $1,200.00. She also incurred disbursement in an approximate amount of $300.00 to finish the job by installing the railing. These two disbursements together represent the same amount that Plaintiffs tendered for this work. Granting Mr. Gharibian and Mr. Flamind's claim would be equivalent to forcing Mrs.

Sutherland to pay twice for the same staircase. [ 16 ] Plaintiffs' claim will be dismissed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSED the demand of Varoug Gharibian and Alexandru Flamind with judicial costs in the amount of $189.00. __________________________________ Scott Hughes, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: August 2, 2012