2022 QCCQ 1425, 2022 QCCQ 1425

Smiechowska c. Latitude 45 Services d'inspection en bâtiment inc. 2022 QCCQ 1425 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Civil Division" N° : 500-32-708912-193 DATE : March 23, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ALINA SMIECHOWSKA Plaintiff c. LATITUDE 45 SERVICES D’INSPECTION EN BÂTIMENT INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims the cost of the repairs she was required to do, to the condo unit she purchased, resulting from Defendant’s failure to thoroughly inspect the unit. [ 2 ] The Defendant denies having any responsibility for the cost of the repairs incurred by the Plaintiff.

The context [ 3 ] In June 2018, the Plaintiff purchased unit [...], a semi-basement in a 16 unit building. [ 4 ] In March of that year, the Defendant represented by Charles Cobden, inspector, inspected the unit and provided its report [1] . [ 5 ] After taking possession of the unit, the Plaintiff discovers that the hardwood floors are warped from wall to wall and mold on certain wall, mold that which had been previously repaired by the seller, prior to the inspection, of March 2018. [ 6 ] The Plaintiff retained the services of EnviroPerfect to investigate the defects found in the unit, who provided its repair on July 7, 2018 [2] . [ 7 ] The Plaintiff obtained from Miroslaw Mietla [3] an estimate to replace the floor and other minor corrections, at a cost totalling $8,900. [ 8 ] The Court concludes that the Defendant was not negligent in conducting its inspection, and here is why. [ 9 ] The Court notes two major differences between the inspection by Inspector Cobden and the one done by Roderick Thorpe of EnviroPerfect. [ 10 ] Firstly, Mr.

Cobden inspected the unit in March, when the unit was fully furnished at the time. He also reports that the outside temperature was 1 o C. [ 11 ] Mr. Thorpe inspected during in July, a unit that was vacant and had been left unheated during several months. [ 12 ] When Mr. Cobden returned in June 2018, he confirms that the floors were warped. He states that if the floor had been warped during his visit, he would certainly have discovered it, so would the Plaintiff. [ 13 ] At page five and following of Mr.

Thorpe’s report, he comments on the deficiencies noted in the exterior of the building, namely the slope of the patio, the deficiencies in the drain-pipe and the joints, waterproofing tar missing, weep holes too close to the ground level and the absence of window wells in two windows. [ 14 ] On page nine and following of Mr.

Cobden notes the same problems and raises several deficiencies to be corrected namely, the brick siding which is spalling and flacking, determine the origin of the excess water, install flashings at the base of the sills, replace the deteriorated bricks, seal cracks and apply adequate waterproofing treatment, the base of the brick being too close to the ground, the concrete surface deteriorated, inadequate drainage which direct water towards the house, done inadequate direction of the water by the downspouts and the need to replace some downspouts which have opened and split due to freezing.

[ 15 ] Notwithstanding, that many deficiencies had be to corrected, which are the responsibility of the Syndicate, none were corrected prior to the Plaintiff purchasing the unit. [ 16 ] Obviously, these deficiencies could be the cause of the water infiltration and the presence of mold. [ 17 ] As for the interior, the photographs produced by Mr. Cobden [4] show a unit fully furnished, contrary to the state of the unit when visited by Mr. Thorpe. For this reason, Mr.

Thorpe was able to view repairs that had been done in the hot water tank room which had been cleared, a staining radiator which had been pulled from the wall, that Mr. Cobden could not do, incorrect installation of a plastic vapour barrier, discovered because a hole has been cut in the wall and the floor stained under the stove which has been removed from the unit. [ 18 ] Firstly, No evidence was provided to the Court to explain why the floor was warped. Secondly, all defects discovered outside the building are due to a lack of maintenance by the Syndicate.

Finally, some latent defects, which are the responsibility of the seller. [ 19 ] Moreover, in light of the many deficiencies identified by Inspector Cobden, prior to Plaintiff purchasing the unit, she should have addressed these issues with the seller. [ 20 ] The Plaintiff did not fulfill her burden of proof and show that Inspector Cobden was negligent in his inspection. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff’s recourse; WITH COSTS in the amount of $205 representing the judicial stamp of the Contestation. ________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : January 20, 2022