2021 QCCQ 3113, 2021 QCCQ 3113

Dey c. Daley 2021 QCCQ 3113 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-707259-182 DATE: April 14, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SHANKAR DEY and SHAMOLI PAUL-DEY Plaintiffs v.

IAN DALEY Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiffs are suing defendant for $15,000.00, following the sale of an immovable.

They are alleging latent defect. [ 2 ] On December 1, 2009, defendant sold plaintiffs an immovable property, with the building erected thereon, bearing civic address 641-641A Lacharité, in Montréal (LaSalle), for $561,000.00 (deed of sale, exhibit P-1). [ 3 ] The building was listed and sold as a ʺfiveplexʺ; at the time, all 5 units were being rented (listing, exhibit P-2). [ 4 ] Before purchasing the property, plaintiffs had it inspected (inspection report, exhibit P-6). [ 5 ] Deed of sale P-1 provides, interalia , as follows: ʺ ORIGIN OF RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP: The vendor is owner of the immovable having acquired same from Giovanni Polcaro and Nazzareno Salvi, under the terms of a deed of sale, executed before Mtre Louis Bouchard, Notary, on October 29th, 2008, and published in the land registry of Montréal, under number 15 714 456.

WARRANTY: This sale is made with legal warranty. […] DECLARATIONS OF THE VENDOR:

[…] 9. The certificate of location prepared by Jacques Poupard, land surveyor, on August 27th, 1997, describes the present state of the immovable and no change has been made to the building since that date. 10. He has not received any notice from any competent authority to the effect that the immovable is not in conformity with the laws and regulations in effect. […] OBLIGATIONS: The Purchaser obliges himself to: 1.

Take the immovable in its present state declaring that he has seen and examined the same, to his satisfaction, and he has himself verified with the competent authorities that the use that he intends to make of the immovable is in conformity with the laws and regulations in force. […] ʺ [ 6 ] Defendant bought the building from Giovanni Polcaro and Nazzareno Salvi, on October 30, 2008, as a ʺfiveplexʺ (deed of sale, exhibit D-2 and property inspection report, exhibit D-4), and made no changes thereto during his ownership. [ 7 ] In the summer of 2017, the building, which was seriously damaged by fire, required extensive repairs. [ 8 ] On August 23, 2017, plaintiffs received the following letter from the municipal authorities: « Infraction numéro : 18351 Shankar Dey [...] Lasalle (Québec) [...] Immeuble impliqué : 641, avenue Lacharité (LaSalle) Règlement(

s) enfreints(s) : 11-018, art. 32 Délai de résolution accordé : 7 jours Monsieur, Suite à une inspection, nous croyons que vous avez commis ou commettez actuellement une infraction à un ou plusieurs règlements municipaux sur l’immeuble ci-dessus mentionné. Nature de l’infraction : ➢ En ayant effectué des travaux sans avoir fait l’obtention d’un permis de construction au préalable. (logis sous-sol) Nous vous demandons de prendre les moyens nécessaires pour remédier à la situation dans le délai accordé en rubrique.

Comptant sur votre collaboration, veuillez agréer mes salutations distinguées. (sig.) Jean-François Claveau Inspecteur du cadre bâti » (letter, exhibit P-4) [ 9 ] The City also informed plaintiffs that architectural plans would be required to obtain a building permit. [ 10 ] The process of obtaining the plans and the permit and of finishing the work, took several months (architect’s invoice, dated March 30, 2018, exhibit P-3 en liasse ; building permit, dated May 3, 2018, exhibit P-4; and general contractor’s invoice, dated May 21, 2018, exhibit P-3 en liasse ). [ 11 ] Despite the passing of time, plaintiffs did not notify defendant of the municipal infractions, either verbally or in writing, until all work had been completed. [ 12 ] It is only on June 6, 2018, that plaintiffs’ lawyers sent the following demand letter to defendant: ʺ Dear Sir:

We represent Shankar Dey & Shamoli Paul-Dey, who purchased an immoveable from you on the 1 st day of December 2009, said immoveable located at 641-641A Lacharité, in the city and of Montreal, which had 5 units which could be rented. In August 2017, the said immoveable suffered a fire and when our client went to the City of Lasalle to obtain a permit to repair the said immoveable, they were informed that the basement apartment was illegal, and should a tenant continue to lease the apartment, our clients would receive a fine.

They were also informed by the city of Lasalle they had to obtain the services of an architect and engineer in order to change the position of the bathroom, and as a result our clients hired a general contractor and incurred costs in the amount of $22,990.26. We are enclosing copies of the invoices which our clients have paid in order to renovate the basement apartment to conform to the by-laws of the city of Lasalle.

Please be advised unless the said sum of $22,990.26 is paid to the undersigned in trust, within ten days from the date of the present letter, our instructions are to institute the appropriate legal proceedings against you without further notice or delay. Under the new Code of Civil Procedure, the parties are encouraged to attempt to resolve their issues amicably before litigation. Should there be an interest on your part to attempt to resolve this matter before litigation, you or your attorney must communicate with the undersigned within ten days from the date of the present letter DO GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

Yours very truly, ROSENZVEIG STRAUBER WAXMAN ʺ (demand letter, exhibit P-5) [ 13 ] Furthermore, in their claim, plaintiffs made the following legal admission: ʺ9. The Plaintiff did not carry out any emergency work.ʺ (claim, dated November 12, 2018) [ 14 ]

Section 1725 of the Civil Code of Québec states: 1725. The seller of an immovable warrants the buyer against any violation of public law restrictions affecting the property which are exceptions to the ordinary law of ownership.

The seller is not bound to that warranty where he has given notice of these restrictions to the buyer at the time of the sale, where a prudent and diligent buyer could have discovered them by reason of the nature, location and use of the premises or where such restrictions have been registered at the registry office. [ 15 ] Although, based on the principles stated by the Court of appeal in Vézina v. Lamoureux [1] and by the Court of Québec in Poulin v. Dallaire , [2] defendant risked being held liable under

section 1725 C.C.Q. , this despite par. 1 of the purchasers’ obligations in deed of sale P-1, in the present instance, he cannot be held liable, in virtue of sections 1594, 1595 and 1739 C.C.Q. : 1594. A debtor may be in default for failing to perform the obligation owing to the terms of the contract itself, when it contains a stipulation that the mere lapse of time for performing it will have that effect. A debtor may also be put in default by an extrajudicial demand to perform the obligation addressed to him by his creditor, a judicial application filed against him or the sole operation of law. 1595.

An extrajudicial demand by which a creditor puts his debtor in default must be made in writing. The demand must allow the debtor sufficient time for performance, having regard to the nature of the obligation and the circumstances; otherwise the debtor may perform the obligation within a reasonable time after the demand. 1739. A buyer who ascertains that the property is defective shall give notice in writing of the defect to the seller within a reasonable time after discovering it.

Where the defect appears gradually, the time begins to run on the day that the buyer could suspect the seriousness and extent of the defect.

The seller may not invoke the tardiness of a notice from the buyer if he was aware of the defect or could not have been unaware of it. [ 16 ] Indeed, by advising defendant of the municipal infractions only after they had completed the work, plaintiffs essentially forfeited their right to sue. [ 17 ] Indeed, in the present instance, defendant was not given the opportunity to remedy the situation or, in the least, approve the costs to be incurred or offer to do them at a lesser cost. [3] [ 18 ] Given that plaintiffs themselves admitted that there was no urgency to proceed with the work (s. 1597 C.C.Q .), and given that it

took them several months to obtain the required permit and have the work done, there is absolutely no justification for not having notified defendant beforehand , in writing, rather than presenting him with a demand letter, as a fait accompli , some 9 years after the sale and almost one year after the City’s letter P-4. [ 19 ] In Poulin v. Dallaire , [4] the Court decided as follows in a similar case: « [11] Le 14 février 2018, madame Poulin reçoit un

Avis de correction de la part de la Division de la gestion du territoire -

section permis et inspection de la Ville. Cet avis soulève la non-conformité de l’Immeuble en raison qu’aucun permis n’ait été émis visant l’aménagement d’un logement au sous-sol . [12] Madame Poulin est sidérée d’apprendre que le logement est illégal, puisque construit sans permis. [13] La Division de la gestion du territoire -

section permis et inspection de la Ville exige que madame Poulin apporte des correctifs avant le 14 mars 2018, à savoir : 1. Obtenir un permis pour l’ajout d’un logement conforme. Ou 2. Obtenir un certificat d’autorisation pour son démantèlement. [14] À cette fin, elle doit choisir l’une des options suivantes : 1. Démanteler la cuisine en retirant l’évier (les tuyaux doivent être dissimulés dans le mur de façon permanente) ; 2. Démanteler la salle de bain en retirant la toilette (les tuyaux doivent être dissimulés dans le mur de façon permanente) ; 3.

Pratiquer une ouverture entre les deux logements permettant un passage libre et sans porte entre les deux cuisines. Les portes et leur cadre doivent être retirés et les ouvertures prolongées sur toute la largeur du mur, du sol jusqu’au plafond.

Des plans seront aussi requis démontrant l’ouverture entre les deux logements. [Reproduction conforme à l’original, pièce P-3] [15] Afin de rendre le logement conforme à la réglementation, et ce, peu importe l’option choisie, par madame Poulin, celle-ci doit effectuer des travaux de transformation et débourser des frais en conséquence. [16] Le 16 avril 2018, madame Poulin dénonce par écrit la situation à madame Dallaire, lui accorde un délai de dix jours pour visiter l’Immeuble avec ses experts et pour effectuer les travaux correctifs permettant de rendre le logement conforme.

À défaut, elle évaluera laquelle des deux options lui permettra de mieux mitiger ses dommages et la tiendra responsable des dommages-intérêts, y compris la perte de la valeur de l’Immeuble. [17] Le 24 avril 2018, madame Dallaire visite l’Immeuble et le lendemain, elle décline toute responsabilité. Elle répond ceci : […] Nous avons alors constaté que des transformations majeures ont été apportées à la propriété. Celles-ci ont été effectuées sous l’entière responsabilité de la propriétaire actuelle, votre cliente, Madame Sylvie Poulin.

Je vous confirme que je me dégage formellement de toutes responsabilités découlant de ces transformations ainsi que de toutes conséquences de quelques natures que ce soit, actuelles ou futures pouvant en découler. [Reproduction conforme à l’original, pièce P-6.] […] [36] Ainsi, le vendeur a l’obligation de garantir à l’acheteur que son droit de propriété est exempt de toute violation antérieure à la vente. [37] Concernant cet article, il est mentionné aux commentaires du ministre de la Justice : À

titre d’exemple de limitations de droit public, on peut mentionner l’existence d’un règlement de zonage, d’urbanisme ou de protection de l’environnement. [38] Il importe de s’assurer que les conditions préalables de la garantie légale du droit de propriété contre des violations aux limitations de droit public sont remplies. Les auteurs Pierre-Gabriel Jobin et Michelle Cumyn, dans leur ouvrage La vente , énumèrent ces conditions de la manière suivante : 1. La violation réalisée à la limitation de droit public doit exister au moment de la vente ; 2. Il doit y avoir absence de dénonciation de la violation par le vendeur ; 3. Il doit y avoir absence de publicité de la violation ;

4. L’acheteur doit avoir agi avec prudence et diligence ; 5.

Le préavis doit être donné par l’acheteur au vendeur dans un délai raisonnable de la connaissance de cette violation. […] [86] La preuve démontre donc que toutes les conditions d’application de la garantie légale de droit de propriété sont remplies : ➢ La violation de droit public existe au moment de la vente; ➢ Il y a absence de dénonciation de la violation par madame Dallaire parce qu’elle en ignore l’existence; ➢ Il n’y a aucune publicité de la violation; ➢ Madame Poulin s’est comportée en acheteur prudent et diligent; ➢ Madame Poulin a donné à madame Dallaire un préavis dans un délai raisonnable . » (emphasis added) [ 20 ] Lastly, although plaintiffs’ witnesses were not present at trial, their presence will no longer be required, as plaintiffs have no chance of succeeding in this matter.

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiffs’ claim, with legal costs in the amount of $202.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 1, 2021