2021 QCCQ 13107, 2021 QCCQ 13107

Couvreur de toitures Mont-Rose (Québec) limitée c. Theodorakopoulos 2021 QCCQ 13107 COURT OF QUÉBEC « Small Claims Division » « Practice Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL « Civil Division» N° : 500-32-150062-158 DATE : December 16, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY JUDGE HENRI RICHARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ COUVREUR DE TOITURES MONT-ROSE (QUÉBEC) LIMITÉE Plaintiff v. PARASKEVI THEODORAKOPOULOS Defendant/ Plaintiff in warranty v.

THE WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY -et- AIG ASSURANCE OF CANADA Defendants in warranty ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT On Wawanesa’s motion to dismiss the recourse in warranty ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff initiated an action on account against the Defendant and claimed $10,717.68 for roofing work. [ 2 ] On January 15, 2016, Defendant filed a contestation in which she pleads that Plaintiff is not fully performing its obligations under the contract executed on November 10, 2014 in connection with the "metal work". [ 3 ] On November 9, 2020, the Defendant filed an « Application for the forced intervention of a third party » by which she calls in warranty The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company ( Wawanesa ) on the following grounds : new roof; damages from new roof advised possible/[…] mold as per spores detected ([…] report) June 2018. [ 4 ] On January 11, 2018, Wawanesa filed its contestation in which it alleges, namely, that : 4.

Le litige ayant donné lieu à cette action ne met pas en jeu la garantie d'assurance, il s'agit d'un litige sur le paiement de travaux effectués par un entrepreneur et la garantie des dits travaux ; 5. Aucune allégation de la demande, contestation ou demande reconventionnelle ne fait mention de ce qui pourrait être reproché à Wawanesa ; 6. Une demande similaire est ouverte à la Cour du Québec pour une action datée du 9 novembre 2020 au montant de 41 000$ où Mme Théodorakolpoulos est la demanderesse et Couvreur de toiture Mont- Rose (Québec) Ltée le défendeur, dossier 500-22-264231-203, voir DF002-2 ; […] 15.

Aux faits mentionnés plus haut, la défenderesse en garantie ajoute que la prescription concernant un sinistre quelconque pouvant être couvert par le contrat d'assurance est acquise, en effet la réfection de la toiture ayant eu lieu en novembre 2014 et la présence de l'infiItration d'eau découverte peu de temps après lesdites réparations. Le tout tel que stipulé par l'

article 2925 du CcQ ; 16. 11 est à noter que l'action de Couvreur de toitures Montrose Québec fut intentée en novembre 2015, contesté par la défenderesse/demanderesse en garantie en janvier 2016, le dépôt de la demande reconventionnelle en février 2018 et ce n'est qu'en novembre 2020 que la demande en garantie contre Wawanesa est faite ; 17. Advenant que la cour considère qu'il y a sinistre et que la prescription n'est pas retenue, la déclaration tardive à l'assureur, en novembre 2020, d'un événement s'étant produit plusieurs années plus tôt cause préjudice à la défenderesse en garantie pour l'estimation, protection adéquate contre l'aggravation des dommages et recours contre

partie responsable, le tout en dérogation aux articles du CcQ 2470, 2471 et 2495 ; (as is reproduction)

[ 5 ] In addition, Wawanesa pleads the policy's exclusion clauses relating to gradual damage and "faulty material or workmanship", as well as damages occurring on a continuous or repeated basis, whether or not known to the insured. [ 6 ] In its "Demande pour mise hors de cause", Wawanesa pleads that it has already been dismissed from the case in the above- mentioned Court of Québec file, initiated by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, and adds that the recourse in warranty is prescribed. ISSUE [ 7 ] Are the criteria for allowing the Defendant to call Wawanesa in warranty satisfied?

ANALYSIS [ 8 ] Articles 184, 189 and 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CCP ) provide the framework for the exercise of a recourse in warranty: 184 . Intervention is either voluntary or forced. Intervention is voluntary when a person who has an interest in a proceeding but is not a party or whose participation in a proceeding is necessary in order to authorize, assist or represent an incapable party intervenes in the proceeding as a party. It is also voluntary when a person wishes to intervene for the sole purpose of participating in argument during the trial.

Intervention is forced when a party impleads a third person so that the dispute may be fully resolved or so that the judgment may be set up against that third person. It is also forced when a party intends to exercise recourse in warranty against the third person. […] 189 . When the purpose of the forced intervention is to call a third person in warranty, the warranty is termed simple if the plaintiff in warranty is being sued as personally liable. The warranty is termed formal if the plaintiff in warranty is being sued as the holder of a thing.

A third person called in simple warranty cannot take up the defence of the plaintiff in warranty, but may merely contest the application brought against the latter, if the person sees fit. A third person called in formal warranty may take up the defence of the plaintiff in warranty and the latter may ask to be relieved from defending. In order to preserve their respective rights, the plaintiff in warranty, although relieved from defending, may remain in the proceeding and the principal plaintiff may require that the plaintiff in warranty remain in the proceeding.

A judgment rendered against the formal warrantor is enforceable against the plaintiff in warranty after it is notified to the latter. 190 . The principal application and the recourse in warranty are joined in a single proceeding and, unless separated by the court, are subject to the same case protocol, which is revised to take the recourse in warranty into account.

The principal application and the recourse in warranty are tried together and a single judgment decides them both. [ 9 ] This procedure depends on the existence of a legal relationship between the Plaintiff in warranty and the party called in warranty and must be sufficiently related to the main action, as the Court of Appeal stated in Kingsway General Insurance Co. v.

Duvernay Plomberie et chauffage inc . [1] [ 10 ] In the present file, the legal relationship between the Plaintiff in warranty and Wawanesa is established. [ 11 ] As for the connectedness (connexité) criterion, the jurisprudence requires a link such that the recourse in warranty and the principal claim could not be tried by different courts without the danger of contradictory judgments [2] .

According to the teachings of the Court of Appeal, the objective of the forced intervention of a third party remains that of ensuring the orderly management of proceedings, by facilitating their progress without unduly prolonging the main proceedings [3] . [ 12 ] Clearly, the connectedness criterion is not satisfied since the principal claim is a simple action on account for unpaid invoices following roofing work, whereas the recourse in warranty against Wawanesa involves the insurance policy binding the parties.

This policy does not cover poor workmanship and damages that occur on a continuous or repeated basis. [ 13 ] Moreover, it is clear that Wawanesa's forced intervention in no way ensures proper case management, since it unduly prolongs the main proceedings and complicates them unnecessarily. [ 14 ] Furthermore, the Court notes that on April 13, 2021, in the file initiated by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in Court of Québec file number 500-22-264231-203, Judge Martin Bergeron granted Wawanesa's application to be placed out of the case. [ 15 ] It would therefore be difficult for the Court, hearing in the Small Claims Division, to disregard this judgment when the present instance before the Court of Québec is being conducted between the same parties, under the same contract of enterprise for the roofing work and the same insurance policy. [ 16 ] Finally, the Court concludes, after analyzing the allegations of the proceedings in this case, that the recourse in warranty against Wawanesa is clearly prescribed since the first signs of defects appear in 2014 and 2015 and the recourse in warranty against Wawanesa is undertaken in November 2020, contrary to the provisions of

article 2925 of the Civil Code of Québec :

2925. An action to enforce a personal right or movable real right is prescribed by three years, if the prescriptive period is not otherwise determined. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : GRANTS The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company’s motion to be placed out of this case and in inadmissibility; DISMISSES Paraskevi Theodorakopoulos’ recourse in warranty against The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company; EACH PARTY paying its own costs. __________________________________ Henri Richard, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: December 9, 2021