2019 QCCQ 2821, 2019 QCCQ 2821

Dedam c. Lévesque 2019 QCCQ 2821 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BONAVENTURE TOWN OF CARLETON Civil Division No: 145-32-700059-187 DATE: April 3, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENIS PARADIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Anthony Dedam Plaintiff v.

Francis Lévesque And Solange Lévesque Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In June 2016, Mr. Dedam bought a house from Mr. and Mrs. Lévesque for $ 69,000.00. He argues in court that the house is affected by many latent defects. He capped his claim at $ 15,000.00 in order to file his claim before the small claims division. [ 2 ] The defendants claim that they owe nothing to the plaintiff.

It's not about latent defects but about renovating and upgrading the house, they argue, among other things. THE EVIDENCE [ 3 ] Mr. Dedam knows this house. Before it belonged to Mr. Lévesque, it was a Mr. Grégoire who owned it. He acquired the property as an investment, not to live there. Incidentally, he rents the house to his niece Ocean Methot and her spouse Dennis Wysote. [ 4 ] Before buying, Mr. Dedam visited the house twice. He did not notice anything abnormal. Although he knew that the construction dated back to 1960, he did not have it inspected. [ 5 ] Mr.

Dedam blames the sellers for not revealing to him the many problems with the house, which he describes as latent defects. The septic tank must be replaced, the electrical system that dates from the construction of the house must be redone, and there is a lack of insulation, in addition to the bad condition of the doors and windows and the presence of insects. [ 6 ] In September 2016, Mr. Dennis Wysote and Ms. Ocean Methot became aware of these deficiencies. This is mentioned at paragraph 6 of the application. Ms. Methot says she pays exorbitant heating costs due to poor insulation and drafts. [ 7 ] Mr.

Lévesque acquired the house in June 2016. He bought it for his daughter. However, in the end, she got a job elsewhere, and he put it up for sale shortly after buying it. He did an inspection of the house, he says, which did not reveal defects but renovations to be made. He did not live in the house. [ 8 ] He did some renovations, including repairing a part of the roof and repainting a few rooms, but nothing more. [ 9 ] Mr. Dedam visited twice. Following his first visit, he made a deposit and returned with an attendant before concluding the sale. Mr.

Lévesque remembers that they looked at the electrical panel and examined the oil furnace. [ 10 ] As far as he knows, the septic system dates from the construction of the house in 1960. [ 11 ] Mr. Lévesque concludes by mentioning that he was only informed of the alleged defects two years after the sale, which is not a reasonable period according to him. LAW, ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 12 ] The seller is bound to deliver a good free of latent defects. However, he is not bound to warrant any defect known to the buyer or any apparent defect.

An apparent defect can be perceived by a prudent and diligent buyer, without the need to resort to an expert. [ 13 ] Also, the buyer who discovers a latent defect must report it to the seller, in writing, within a reasonable time after its discovery.

[ 14 ] On the other hand, the civil law places the burden of proof on the plaintiff, who must prove the facts on which his claim is based. It is therefore for Mr. Dedam to prove the facts which support his claim, on a balance of probabilities. [ 15 ] With respect, the plaintiff has not convinced the Court of the validity of his claim. [ 16 ] Mr. Dedam bought a house built in 1960. When he mentions that the electrical installations are obsolete, he is right, but this is not a latent defect within the meaning of the Civil Code. [ 17 ] As for the doors and windows, they are original to the house.

It is not surprising that their energy efficiency is diminished or destroyed. This is not a latent defect, but deterioration due to the passage of time. [ 18 ] Also, Mr. Dedam was reckless in buying a house at a price of $ 69,000.00 without pushing his research any further. There were reasons to be cautious, such as the age of the house, the electrical panel, and the original doors and windows. In fact, the defects he alleges in court are all apparent defects. [ 19 ] Even if the court believed that they were latent defects, it is clear that they were denounced late to the seller. As of September 2016, Mr.

Dedam was aware of the alleged defects and it was only on October 26, 2018 that he sent a formal notice [1] to Mr. Lévesque. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [21] DISMISSES the application. [22] THE WHOLE WITH COSTS. __________________________________ Denis Paradis, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : March 18 th , 2019