2016 QCCQ 9729, 2016 QCCQ 9729

Petruccelli c. Holguin 2016 QCCQ 9729 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-144344-142 DATE: September 6, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ALESSANDRO PETRUCCELLI Plaintiff v.

ALFONSO HOLGUIN and the Estate of the late MARTA HOLGUIN Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS plaintiff is suing defendants for latent defects; [ 3 ] WHEREAS , in his claim, plaintiff alleges, inter alia , the following: " 1. […] On or around October 21, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased property from the Defendant, following a written agreement. 3. The sale was for the following property: […], […], Montreal, Quebec Canada. 4.

Prior to purchasing, the Plaintiff paid $ 740.51 to have the property inspected by A.L. INPECTION INC, buiding inspector. 5. The defects on the property are as follows: Hello Mr Justice,I purchased the triplex from Mr Hogluin . The sale was covered by a legal warranty and I had the building inspected by a professional inspector. While renovating the basement apartment and upon the removal of the apartment's ceiling sheet rock, we noticed several large cracks in the main supporting beam of the house. Had I seen these cracks prior to the sale, I would have not offered as much for the triplex.

The defect was hidden and not visible at time of visit/inspection. 6. The Plaintiff first noticed that the property was defective on or around July 14, 2012. 7. The Plaintiff did not notice the defects before that date, for the following reasons: The defects ( large cracks in the main supporting beam ) were not visible at time of visit or inspection. 8. The Plaintiff did not carry out any emergency work. 9. […] The Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the defects on the purchased property.

12. In addition to the amount claimed above, the Plaintiff claims an amount of $ 7,306.67 for the following reasons: I am asking that Mr Holguin pay the cost of the repairs of the defective beam per receipt of K2 Construction and the initial quote from Hennault Gosselin.

I willingly accepted all other costs related to this issue as the defect beam was evident only after I initiated some renovations." (sic) [ 4 ] WHEREAS the immovable in question is not a triplex, but a duplex with a basement apartment; [ 5 ] WHEREAS it is an older building; it was almost 50 years old, at the time of sale; [ 6 ] WHEREAS plaintiff declared being "in real estate" and having renovated "a few buildings" in the past; [ 7 ] WHEREAS plaintiff had the building inspected by A.L. Inspection Inc., prior to purchasing it; [ 8 ] WHEREAS

section 4 of the building inspection report (exhibit P-13) reads, inter alia , as follows: " 4- Système: Composantes structurales et

(11) Isolation […] 4.2-Type de structure de plancher sous-sol. […] 5813: Il y a des vallonnements sur les planchers cela demande une investigation supplémentaire. Vérifier auprès d'un spécialiste qualifié, trouver la cause et corriger pour éviter toutes conséquences dues à une négligence à cet effet. Note: Dû aux matériaux recouvrant le plancher du sous-sol nous ne pouvons malheureusement pas nous prononcer sur la totalité de son état, ses pentes et vallonnements.

Les observations mentionnées sont effectuées pour les sections visibles et accessibles. 2 vers 1 […] 4.4 Colonne porteuse et poutre sous sol: Poutre en bois brut de 8x8 pouces avec une distance maximale de 13 pieds entre les poteaux. […] Si vous désirez changer la configuration des murs, il faudra consulter un expert. 2 vers 1

4.5 Structure du plafond du sous-sol (solives); Solives de bois de 2 X 8 pouces aux 12 pouces avec des planches en 45 degrés et ayant une portée maximale de 13.5 pieds. […] 5817 : Le vallonnement est de plus de 2 ½ pouces, cela demande une investigation supplémentaire et à être corrigé. Vérifier auprès d'un spécialiste qualifié, trouver la cause et réparer selon les recommandations afin d'éviter la déflexion et détérioration progressive de la structure. Note: Nous ne mesurons pas la fondation mais les planchers.

Si vous désirez avoir les mesures exactes de la fondation elle- même, il est recommandé d'effectuer les vérifications par une compagnie de stabilisation, car nos mesures sont des mesures indirectes ne correspondant pas à la fondation. 2 vers 1 (sic) [ 9 ] WHEREAS the "2 vers 1" annotations mentioned in said report, are defined as follows at page 2 thereof: " 2 vers 1 Recommandation pour la sécurité si applicable: ou réparation, investigation ou entretien requis à brève échéance. Note: la présence du 1 dans le code 2 vers 1 indique une plus haute priorité qu'un code 2 de Réparation, entretien ou investigation.

Ne pas suivre les recommandations faites à l'occasion d'un code 2 vers 1 dans un avenir très rapproché pourrait engendrer des coûts et conséquences équivalents à ceux d'un code 1." [ 10 ] WHEREAS , as declared by former tenant Jasmin Bouchard in writing, on December 10, 2012, the sloping of the floors was evident: "Nous avons habité au 5815 Bossuet de Juillet 2009 à Mai 2012. Dès notre arrivée, nous avons constaté une dénivellation au niveau du plancher de la cuisine. Nous avons dû installer à l'extrémité droite du réfrigérateur (en dessous) une planche de bois de 2" X 8" afin d'équilibrer celui-ci.

De plus, nous avons constaté la même dénivellation au niveau du couloir menant à la chambre des maîtres et nous avons dû percer un trou de serrure 1" en bas de celui déjà existant afin que nous puissions fermer la porte et l'enclencher efficacement. Finalement, nos amis ayant habité le logement du dessus, nous avons aussi pu constater une dénivellation du plancher au niveau de la cuisine et de la chambre attenante à celle-ci.

Dans la cuisine, la table penchait et dans la chambre la chaise à roulette se déplaçait vers le couloir lorsque nous y étions assis." (sic) [ 11 ] WHEREAS , while he was renovating the basement apartment, plaintiff noticed cracks in a "main beam (which) had a banana shape to it"; [ 12 ] WHEREAS , in his written representations, plaintiff declared, inter alia : "[…] I then proceeded to obtain a quote for the repair of the problem from a reputable repairer whom the inspector has outlined as a specialist in his report.

Given the nature of this structural issue, the repairer charged me 569.13 $ with taxes to prepare a quote which I paid." (exhibit P-18, p.1)

[ 13 ] WHEREAS plaintiff is referring to Hénault et Gosselin Inc. ("Hénault"), whose name does indeed appear in expert report P-13, on page 2 of the list of references, at par. 26, under "Fondations/Stabilisation"; [ 14 ] WHEREAS Hénault's report was filed as exhibit P-20; [ 15 ] WHEREAS Hénault's mandate is described as follows: " Mandat Vous nous avez confié le mandat de visiter la propriété située à l'adresse mentionnée en rubrique et de vous transmettre notre évaluation budgétaire pour le renforcement de la poutre centrale. […]" (page 1) [ 16 ] WHEREAS , at page 2 of the report, Hénault indicates: " Nos observations Le bâtiment a été visité le 16 juillet 2012.

Selon nos observations, la poutre centrale en bois (8 po sur 8 po) est fendue entre deux appuis. Un poteau temporaire a été installé au centre de la portée (sous la fente)." [ 17 ] WHEREAS , at page 5 of the report, Hénault indicates: " Autres informations Nous avons observé que le plancher du sous-sol était déformé et plusieurs bosses sont facilement perceptibles. Dans une pièce, la dalle de béton est directement visible et il y a de l'efflorescence (poudre blanche). Ce sont des signes visuels souvent associés à la présence de pyrite dans le remblai sous la dalle de béton.

La pierre de remblai ayant une composition comprenant de la pyrite a un potentiel de gonflement qui soulève les dalles de béton. Un test de laboratoire est nécessaire pour déterminer la présence de remblai ayant un potentiel de gonflement. Et de déterminé s'il y a un risque pour la structure de la maison." (sic) [ 18 ] WHEREAS , furthermore, neither Hénault nor K2 Construction Inc. appeared as witnesses; [ 19 ] WHEREAS art. 1726 of the Civil Code of Quebec states: " 726.

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." [ 20 ] WHEREAS , according to the preponderance of evidence, plaintiff did not act as a prudent and diligent buyer should; [ 21 ] WHEREAS , given the warnings and recommendations contained in building inspection report P-13, plaintiff should have either investigated the issues reported in pages 4 to 6 thereof more carefully or attentively, before purchasing the property, or simply not proceed with the transaction; [ 22 ] WHEREAS , at page 6 of the report, there was a clear warning regarding " la déflexion et détérioration progressive de la structure" and a clear recommendation to "vérifier auprès d'un spécialiste qualifié"; [ 23 ] WHEREAS , in proceeding with the sale without heeding the inspector's warnings and recommendations, plaintiff bought at his own risk; [1] [ 24 ] WHEREAS , what is more, plaintiff failed to produce any expert witnesses to support his allegations with respect not only to fault, but also to the damages and claim, as well as causal link between the two; [ 25 ] WHEREAS , in fact, the reason for the building's "instability", if there was such "instability", remains nebulous (see Hénault's report p. 5); [ 26 ] WHEREAS , finally, plaintiff intervened and manipulated the beam in question (Hénault's report, dated July 17, 2012, exhibit P-1A, p. 2 and picture, exhibit D-14), before advising defendant, in writing, of the alleged defect (demand letter, exhibit P-1B), that which is contrary to arts. 1595, 1602 and 1739 C.C.Q . and constitutes a "fin de non recevoir" to plaintiff's action; [2] [ 27 ] WHEREAS plaintiff failed to prove his allegations, by a preponderance of evidence (arts. 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q .);

[ 28 ] WHEREAS , for all of the above reasons, plaintiff's action is unfounded; [ 29 ] WHEREAS defendants discontinued their suit against A.L. Inspection Inc., on May 12, 2016; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's claim, with legal costs in the amount of $157.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: May 20, 2016