2016 QCCQ 4529, 2016 QCCQ 4529

J.B. 3620 Lorenz c. Massaud 2016 QCCQ 4529 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Small Claims Court » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF LONGUEUIL CITY OF LONGUEUIL « Civil Division » N° : 505-32-033109-142 DATE : April 20, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE VIRGILE BUFFONI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ TAMMY LORENZ Plaintiff c.

GOBRAN TOBIA MASSAUD et SOHA NADER GERGES Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff (the seller) claims $7,000 from the defendants (the buyers) representing the balance of the sale price on a piece of land and residence sold by the seller to the buyers on August 17, 2012. [ 2 ] The selling price of the immoveable amounted to $325,000, of which $7,000 was retained «in trust» by the executing notary after the sale of the immoveable to ensure execution of the roof repairs needed and in accordance with the sale agreement. [ 3 ] On June 11, 2013, a contractor, Toiture GS Inc. (GS) executed the repairs to the roof.

Even though the work had been done, the buyers refused to have the executing notary disburse the funds held «in trust» to the seller. [ 4 ] The buyers contest the claim because the roofing work was not done by West Island Roofing (WIR), who provided a quotation and specifications for the work to be done at the time of the deed of sale’s signature. [ 5 ] The buyers argue that it was a requirement that the work be done by WIR. Also, the buyers question the quality of the work done by GS.

At the hearing, the buyers pointed out the different color used by GS and the different number and model of the maximum ventilations used by GS compared to the specifications mentioned in WIR’s quotation. [ 6 ] The main issue in litigation pertains to the proper

interpretation of the agreement signed by the parties. The said agreement is drafted in a document entitled Amendments and notice of fulfilment of conditions , AM18091, which states as follows : It is agreed by all parties that the Seller, at her full expense, shall have the roof work done as specified in the quotation of June 20, 2012 by West Island Roofing. This work shall be performed no later than June 30, 2013. The notary, at the signing of the deed of sale, shall retain the sum of seven thousand dollars ($7.000.00) «in trust», until the roof work has been done.

At that time, the funds «in trust» of $7.000 shall be remitted to the Seller.

Should the roof work have not been done by the deadline, the amount of $7.000 shall be remitted to the Buyers as compensation. [ 7 ] Based on the evidence, the Court finds that the quotation from WIR was obtained for the main purpose of determining the amount to be retained «in trust» by the notary at the time of the signature of the deed of sale. [ 8 ] The quotation was used as a reference for the amount, but not a requirement that WIR actually execute the work. [ 9 ] Surely, it was a requirement between the parties that a qualified roofer would execute the work specified in WIR’s quotation. [ 10 ] As to the quality of the work done by GS, no expert testified at the hearing as to the lack of quality of the work done.

The expert evidence shows the contrary. [ 11 ] The buyers stated that the color used by GS was not the same as that specified in the WIR’s quotation. The Court finds that the

slighly different color was required because the original color was discontinued.

This issue is not related to the quality but to the subjective appreciation of the buyers. [ 12 ] The buyers also complained that GS installed two maximum ventilations and a different model than the three different maximums ventilation models specified on WIR’s quotation. [ 13 ] However, according to the expert’s opinion, the performance of the maximum ventilations installed by GS was equal if not superior to that specified in WIR’s quotation. [ 14 ] GS’s work does represent an adequate equivalent to WIR’s specifications and in essence is a valid execution of the WIR’s work as per its quotation. [ 15 ] As a consequence, the Court finds that the seller has duly executed her contractual obligation and that she is entitled to receive the amount held «in trust» by the notary, $7,000, as per the agreement.

WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 16 ] CONDEMS the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $7,000, together with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided for in

Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec from September 6, 2013, date of the letter of demand, and the legal costs of $169. __________________________________ VIRGILE BUFFONI, J.C.Q.