2017 QCCQ 13767, 2017 QCCQ 13767

Weng c. Suh 2017 QCCQ 13767 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32 149959-159 DATE: November 20, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JIAN WENG Plaintiff v.

KENNETH SUH and RENÉE HUGHES Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Jian Weng claims $14,946.75 from Kenneth Suh and Renée Hughes on the grounds that the property he purchased from them was afflicted with a latent defect at the time of the sale. Specifically, he argues that the wooden front balcony was tilted and in danger of collapsing because the wooden support posts were rotten. [ 2 ] Defendants deny all liability.

They argue that the property was more than a century old and thus the problem the Mr. Weng complains cannot qualify as a latent defect. Moreover, they claim that the Mr. Weng’s notice of latent defect is deficient because the repairs were already carried out when they received the notice. Questions in Dispute

a) Does the defect alleged by Mr. Weng constitute a latent defect within the meaning of

article 1726 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.)?

b) Did Mr. Weng provide proper notice of the latent defect to the Defendants?

c) If so, what amount of damages is Mr. Weng entitled to? Context [ 3 ] On October 10, 2014, Mr. Weng purchased a property from defendants with legal warranty and paid $845,000 (“Property”). [1] The Property is a three storey row house duplex located in Westmount and built in 1894. [2] Two wooden balconies supported by wooden posts are on the façade of the Property. [ 4 ] Mr.

Weng purchased the Property as an investment property and rented the two apartments. [ 5 ] The Defendants had purchased the property in April 2012 and were occupying the ground floor apartment in June 2013 when they moved to the Greater Toronto Area. [ 6 ] In late April 2015, the Mr. Weng discovered that the floor of the balconies were tilting and cracks appeared in the wooden structure. He hired a building inspector, Jean-Claude Trudeau, to inspect the balconies. [ 7 ] Mr.

Trudeau’s inspection carried out on or about April 29, 2015, revealed that there was a risk of collapse of the balcony due to the advanced state of decay of the wooden support posts. [3] [ 8 ] On April 29, 2015, Mr. Weng sent an email and a letter to the Defendants to inform them the balcony was at risk of collapsing and that urgent repairs would be carried out. [4] [ 9 ] By demand letter dated October 6, 2015, Mr. Weng enjoined the Defendants to pay $14,946.75 for the costs of emergency reinforcement of the balcony and repairs. [5]

[ 10 ] By letter dated December 2, 2015, Defendants denied liability arguing notably that the Notice of Latent Defect was deficient in that they were deprived of the opportunity to inspect the balcony prior to the repairs being carried out. [6] [ 11 ] However, on November 25, 2015, Mr. Weng had already filed his application with the Court of Quebec, Small Claims Division. Analysis and Decision

a) Does the defect alleged by Mr. Weng constitute a latent defect within the meaning of

article 1726 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.)? [ 12 ] Mr. Weng’s claim is based on the legal warranty against latent defects, which is codified in

article 1726 C.C.Q. and which reads as follows: III. Warranty of quality 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. (Underlining added) [ 13 ] To succeed on a claim based on this warranty, the buyer must prove the following four conditions: • The problem must be a serious defect; • The problem must have existed at the time of the sale; • The problem was hidden or not apparent; and • The defect has to be unknown to the buyer. [7] [ 14 ] Moreover, the Civil Code also requires, that the buyer must give notice in writing of the defect to the seller within a reasonable time after discovering it. [8] [ 15 ] There is no real issue in this litigation that the problem with the balcony was unknown to Mr.

Weng at the time of the sale, that it was hidden or that it existed at the time of the sale. Rather, the issues raised by Mr. Weng’s claim and the Defendants’ contestation pertain to (

i) the first condition, i.e. whether the state of the balcony constitutes a serious defect for the purposes of

article 1726 C.C.Q. and (ii) whether the notice of latent defect was adequate. [ 16 ] The Property was 120 years old at the time of the sale.

The evidence also reveals that the cause of the potential collapse of the balcony is because the wooden posts supporting the balcony were decaying and rotten. [9] [ 17 ] However, the courts of the Province of Québec have consistently held that time worn or outdated building materials or components, normal wear and tear, and the end of the useful life of a building component do not constitute latent defects covered by the legal warranty of quality. [10] [ 18 ] For example, in Ouellet v. Parent [11] , the buyer argued that the rotten wooden support beams of a hundred year old house constituted a latent defect.

The Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit on the following grounds: [23] La preuve révèle que la poutre centrale et les poutres transversales étaient vraisemblablement pourries. Cet état de fait ne pouvait être décelé sans l’enlèvement de la laine minérale. Le caractère caché du vice est indéniable. Il était cependant ignoré de monsieur Parent car il n’a procédé à aucuns travaux d’isolation au sous-sol. La laine minérale qui recouvrait les poutres était en place lorsque monsieur Parent a acheté la maison en 1994.

Il ne l’a jamais enlevée. [24] Par ailleurs, monsieur Parent n’a jamais visualisé l’état « de la poutre de façade de la résidence ». [25] Lorsqu’il a refait la galerie, en 2013, le madrier de base lui paraissait sain et en bon état. [26] Il a enlevé le support et la planche sans retirer le madrier déjà en place, après en avoir vérifié la solidité à coups de marteau. [27] Par précaution, il a ajouté un madrier neuf pour solidifier la galerie. Il affirme toutefois qu’il aurait pu « partir » l’assise de la galerie sur le madrier de base.

Ainsi, les planches de la galerie reposent sur les deux madriers. [28] Rappelons que monsieur Parent n’est pas un spécialiste de la construction. Il est un buandier retraité depuis 2015. Les réparations à la maison effectuées par lui ne sont pas de grande envergure et pour plusieurs relèvent de l’entretien. [29] Monsieur Parent est catégorique :

- Que ce soit par manque d’attention ou non, il n’a pas vu de pourriture lors de la réfection de la galerie; - Il n’a pas constaté que le solage était bombé; - Il n’a pas constaté de

partie manquante (photo P-9-2). [30] À l’instruction, monsieur Parent réitère ce qui suit : « La lisse, je le sais pas mais je sais que quand j’ai refaite la galerie, que le madrier qui a tenu la galerie avait d’lair solide. » [31] Il s’agit d’un maison centenaire et le Tribunal estime que la pourriture des poutres relève de la vétusté. [32] La jurisprudence reconnaît que la vétusté, l’usure normale, l’atteinte de la durée de vie utile ne constituent pas des vices cachés couverts par la garantie légale : « L’acheteur le moindrement prudent et avisé se sentira obligé, avant d’acheter une vieille maison, de l’examiner soigneusement et d’anticiper certaines réparations en regard de l’âge de l’immeuble et de ses composantes. » [33] En d’autres mots : « [68] […] La garantie contre les vices cachés s’éteignant progressivement, la détérioration due au vieillissement ou à la vétusté normale d’un bien ou de ses composantes ne constitue pas en principe un vice caché. […] » [34] Il est d’ores et déjà reconnu qu’en présence d’une maison centenaire, l’acheteur doit être vigilent s’il constate des éléments pouvant laisser croire à un vice.

La Cour d’appel réitère ce principe dans l’arrêt Gélinas c. Beaumier : « L’acheteur d’une maison centenaire doit prévoir qu’il trouvera des détériorations dues à la vétusté et s’il ne fait aucune réserve, il est censé accepter la maison avec les défauts résultant de la façon de construire à l’époque et les détériorations dues à l’ancienneté. » (Citations omitted) [ 19 ] In light of this case law, the Court considers that the rotten wooden support posts of the balcony do not constitute a latent defect for the purposes of

article 1726 C.C.Q. [ 20 ] Given this conclusion, the Court need not address the second and third questions in dispute. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Jian Weng’s Application against Kenneth Suh and Renée Hughes; WITH COSTS of $200. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: July 17, 2017