2013 QCCQ 1908, 2013 QCCQ 1908

Russell c. Venditti 2013 QCCQ 1908 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL « Civil Division » N°: 500-22-187612-117 DATE: MARCH 11, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ELIZABETH RUSSELL Plaintiff v.

MIKE VENDITTI and GABRIELLA CORRADI Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is claiming $39,685 following the discovery of latent defects in the house located at […], in Pointe-Claire (the house) that she bought from Defendants in 1999. [ 2 ] Defendants deny liability on the grounds that: – they were not aware of such defects; – when they were informed of Plaintiff's allegations, they were not able to verify them.

THE RELEVANT PROOF The background [ 3 ] Defendants bought their house in January 1982 from Ma Baie inc. They were the first owners and decided in 1992 to finish the basement and build a bathroom. A contract in that respect was given to Carmina Construction. [ 4 ] Following the work, Defendants used the basement as a TV room, playroom and study. They also used the bathroom and shower on a daily basis.

They never noted water infiltration in the basement, smells or humidity and did not use a dehumidifier. [ 5 ] In 1999, they put their house up for sale to move to a larger home. [ 6 ] Plaintiff first visited the house with her real estate agent and found it clean and well maintained. More specifically, the basement seemed newly finished and she noticed a new carpet. [ 7 ] A second visit was made with an inspector and a pre-inspection report was prepared. However, Plaintiff does not recall the name of the inspector nor the firm and the report was lost.

In any event, her recollection is that the inspector suggested repairing a roof truss. She describes her inspector as being meticulous, namely in the basement, where there was no smell or evidence of humidity. [ 8 ] Defendants recall that the inspection lasted more than three hours and they clearly remember the inspector spending time looking, amongst other things, at the electrical panel downstairs. [ 9 ] Plaintiff purchased the house in August 1999 and moved in shortly after.

The discovery of defects [ 10 ] Less than 11 years later, in the spring of 2011, Plaintiff and her husband wanted to sell the house and requested the opinion of two real estate agents to better stage it and to sell it quickly. One of them, Mr. Arsenault, noticed a small damp patch near the water heater located in the basement. He suggested doing minor renovations, such as painting, to improve the look of the house. Plaintiff retained the services of Mr. Peter Mace, from Thomas Renovations, who came to Plaintiff’s house in June to discuss the cosmetic work to be done, namely in the basement. [ 11 ] Mr.

Mace felt mildew on the closet wall located near the bathroom. Considering his discovery, together with the small damp patch noticed by Mr. Arsenault, Plaintiff became worried. Right away, her husband opened the closet wall and discovered extensive

mildew. [ 12 ] Mr. Mace was called back and he discovered, before the end of June, the spread of mold in the bathroom, more specifically underneath the shower base. Considering that Plaintiff lived in the house with her husband and their two young children, the use of the basement was condemned until Mr. Mace could come back and do additional work, a couple of weeks later. The work that followed the discovery of defects [ 13 ] Mr. Mace came back in early July.

There was black mold everywhere and an intolerable smell, which brought him to basically demolish the bathroom and the adjacent room. [ 14 ] During his demolition work, Mr. Mace noticed that the shower drain was installed incorrectly as there was no compression fitting and there was no ventilation in the bathroom. Also, he noticed a negative slope in the area, together with improper electrical wiring and plumbing. He took all the rotten and smelly material outside and put it in a bin which was immediately taken away upon completion of his demolition work.

The steps taken after the demolition [ 15 ] The Court finds it most relevant to review the chronology of the persons who visited Plaintiff’s basement following the demolition work. [ 16 ] Plaintiff informed her insurer of the situation and on July 8 th , Mr. Wagner of Multipro Plus inc., whose services were retained by said insurer, came to inspect the basement. In his report, Mr.

Wagner refers to his visual/thermal inspection and on the information provided by Plaintiff. [ 17 ] He noted a discoloration of the concrete slab where the shower drain was previously located; he also noticed that the concrete- lined trench remained opened, which caused high humidity levels, together with the lack of vapour barrier.

He noted high humidity in the remaining materials ( contreplaqué ) next to the demolished area and recommended the removal of same. [ 18 ] Considering that a swab test showed high contamination, he suggested creating negative pressure in the basement to avoid contamination of the first and second floors of the house. Plaintiff testified that the basement remained unchanged until the decontamination work was done in October or November 2011. [ 19 ] Plaintiff consulted an attorney shortly after and a letter dated July 13, 2011 was sent to Defendants by bailiff.

Said letter referred to the discovery of water and mildew near the water tank and the closet wall, the removal of the shower base, the discovery of the mold, the incorrect shower drain installation and the installation of electric baseboards with inappropriate wiring. [ 20 ] Plaintiff’s attorney informed Defendants that she was waiting to hear from them within five days to make an appointment for an inspection, given that the repairs had to be done on an emergency basis. [ 21 ] Next came Mr. Crisan of Crisman Plomberie on July 23, 2009.

At the time, he noticed the following: – No secondary ventilation of the sink. – An incorrect slope of the shower drain. – An incorrect drainage slope and the necessity to install a non-return valve. – The lack of concrete covering the drains. [ 22 ] In addition, he noticed silicon on the ring of the shower drain which indicated that there was no compression fitting. He is of the opinion that the water came out of the drain and infiltrated below the shower base for several years.

According to him, the plumbing work in the basement was not done by qualified persons and did not meet the requirements of the National Plumbing Code of Canada and the Québec Construction Code . [ 23 ] On July 30, 2011, Defendants and Mr. Edwards, a civil engineer, qualified by the Court as a building expert, came to the house and examined the basement. According to Mr. Edwards, the bathroom downstairs had been totally demolished at the time of his visual inspection as the only remains were the interior surfaces of the concrete foundation walls, the slab and the exposed joints supporting the ground floor.

No samples of the rotten materials were left and he did not see any evidence of mold. He found the basement “dust dry” with no foul or rotten smell. [ 24 ] Mr. Edwards admitted that the pictures taken by Plaintiff in July of 2011 showed discoloration of the floor but cannot provide additional comments since he did not have access to the basement prior to the demolition. Defendants were present during Mr. Edwards’ inspection and they confirmed that the basement was literally bare. [ 25 ] He also reviewed the electrical panel since there was a specific allegation that a 12/2 wire was missing.

He was advised by Defendants that the wire would have carried power to a 750-watt baseboard heater in the bathroom at 240 volts which would normally call for 5 amps. He finds this 12/2 wire more than adequate under the circumstances. [ 26 ] The conclusion of his inspection was that there were no physical facts to support the claim submitted by Plaintiff. [ 27 ] Mr. Rénald Cyr, qualified by the Court as a building expert as well, inspected the basement 20 days later at Plaintiff’s request. At the time, Mr. Cyr looked at the pictures taken by Plaintiff during the demolition work and he took additional pictures.

The following are the highlights of his findings:

– Les matériaux de la salle d’eau et de la salle électrique au coin arrière gauche et la chambre au coin arrière droit sont dégarnis jusqu’au béton (dalle/mur). – La conduite du drain français est à sec et le niveau d’eau dans le bassin est très bas, malgré les précipitations des derniers jours. – Aucune pellicule coupe-vapeur servant à contenir l’humidité provenant du sol n’a été trouvée aux endroits accessibles.

Nous notons toutefois la présence d’un papier noir 15 livres appliqué sur la dalle servant à limiter la pénétration d’humidité, il ne peut cependant l’empêcher de pénétrer totalement. – Les tiges de coffrage accessibles sont pour certaines corrodées, des coulisses d’efflorescence sont perceptibles sous celles-ci, témoignage d’une condensation ou d’un écoulement d’eau à travers la fondation pour certaines. – Dans la salle d’eau, on constate que les renvois de plomberie en « ABS » pour une toilette, une douche et un lavabo, sont installés à effleurement au-dessus de la dalle d’origine, il s’agit fort probablement d’une installation postérieure à la construction.

D’ailleurs, sur les photos prises lors des travaux de démolition du plancher, on constate l’épaisseur d’une chape de béton sous les carreaux de céramique de la pièce. Il est à noter que la dalle d’origine n’a pas été comblée aux abords des renvois, ce qui est contre-indiqué.

Toutefois, une chape de béton d’au moins 75 mm (3 po) peut servir de recouvrement acceptable comme cela était le cas avant les travaux de démolition au plancher de la salle d’eau. – Nous avons creusé dans la pierre concassée aux abords des renvois et n’avons constaté aucun coupe-vapeur sous la dalle. – Nous avons posé un niveau sur les renvois préalablement nettoyés pour confirmer le manque de certaines pentes d’écoulement spécifié par le plombier dans son expertise. – Nous constatons l’absence d’évents de plomberie pour les renvois de la salle d’eau, ce qui est contre-indiqué. – Le seuil de porte et le bas des murs à l’entrée de la salle d’eau sont particulièrement noircis et visiblement affectés par l’eau et de possibles moisissures.

Tel que mentionné en début de rapport, une décontamination aurait été réalisée préalablement à notre visite, mais les résultats postérieurs du rapport « Multipro Plus » faisait état de traces résiduelles de moisissures, ce que nous confirmons. – Le plancher du passage débutant au seuil de la porte de la salle d’eau reposerait directement sur une tranchée en pierre concassée sans coupe-vapeur étanche ou chape de recouvrement. – La lisse aux abords du seuil de la porte de chambre est également noircie par endroits alors que la base du poteau télescopique porteur nous apparaît corrodée. – Il est contre-indiqué de protéger un filage 14/2 avec un disjoncteur 20 ampères – Tel qu’observé sur place, nous sommes d’avis que les disjoncteurs installés au panneau de dérivation ne sont pas adéquats pour un filage 14/2, il aurait plutôt fallu, sous toutes réserves, mettre en place des disjoncteurs deux pôles de 15 ampères chacun en lieu et place de deux pôles de 20 ampères. [ 28 ] In his analysis and conclusions, Mr.

Cyr writes the following: 2.1 CAUSE(

S) PROBABLES(

S) EAU/MOISISSURES À la lumière de nos constats faits sur place et l’analyse de documents soumis au dossier, il appert que les causes les plus probables pour expliquer les dommages par l’eau et les moisissures dans la salle d’eau et les pièces attenantes, seraient un manque d’étanchéité dans le raccord du drain de la douche et la pente inverse dans l’écoulement de son renvoi (voir expertise plombier), un manque dans la protection contre l’humidité provenant du sol et un contact bois/béton dans une zone affectée d’humidité.

Ajoutez à cela la difficulté à évacuer à la source le surplus d’humidité engendré par une douche au sous-sol en raison de l’absence d’un ventilateur d’extraction dans la salle d’eau. Sous toutes réserves, nous sommes d’avis, que lors de travaux de dégarnissage visant une décontamination fongique, une firme professionnelle doit être mandatée pour ce faire, afin d’irrradier complètement la problématique et éviter la résurgence de moisissures et de dommages, le tout selon la règle de l’art.

La cause des dommages par l’eau et les moisissures ne pouvait être décelée par la cliente que par un dégarnissage progressif des composantes. La zone humide n’était pas accessible sans ouverture exploratoire. Ces dommages sont visiblement apparus de façon graduelle au fil du temps et son reliés à une installation ou une mise en place de matériaux ne répondant pas aux normes en vigueur sous plusieurs aspects.

Il était justifié de dégarnir ainsi la salle d’eau et les pièces attenantes, il faut maintenant envisager des vérifications plus approfondies pour s’assurer de l’ampleur de la contamination. [ 29 ] At the hearing, Mr. Cyr testified that he was able to make these findings although the demolition and a preliminary decontamination had been done. The pictures filed in his report show, for example, blackened wood on the door frame and discoloration of the concrete. [ 30 ] As far as the electrical wiring is concerned, Mr. Cyr was of the opinion that it was inappropriate to use a 14/2 wiring for the

electrical baseboards. [ 31 ] Mr. Sénéchal from les Installations Lorimax électrique inc. came next, on September 12, 2011. The report filed by Mr. Sénéchal reads as follows: • J’ai procédé à la vérification du chauffage du sous-sol, et des disjoncteurs au panneau électrique 120/240 200 ampères.

Dans la pièce où le panneau électrique est situé, le chauffage est filé en loomex blanc 2/14, ce filage devra être changé pour du fil à chauffage 2/12 rouge. • Le disjoncteur 20 ampères 2 pôles qui alimente le chauffage de cette pièce n’est pas conforme, car les plinthes et thermostats sont filés en loomex 2/14 et le maximum pour du filage #14 est de 15 ampères, alors le disjoncteur 20 ampères 2 pôles devra être remplacé par un disjoncteur 15 ampères 2 pôles au panneau électrique. (…) [ 32 ] Finally, Plaintiff retained the services of ServiceMaster of Montréal.

Its representative, Peter Martin, was qualified by the Court as an expert in decontamination. [ 33 ] Mr. Martin's involvement began in October 2011 where he too examined the basement. At that time, he noticed the presence of microbial growth on the plywood, sub floor and cement which may have been caused by excessive humidity from a faulty drain installation in the bathroom. He found a high humidity level in the basement. [ 34 ] Mr.

Martin prepared a description of the decontamination work to be done, which can be summarized as follows: – Installation of HEPA hair scrubbers for 7 days during remediation and afterwards. – Removal of affected plywood as required during under negative air pressure. – HEPA vacuuming of all affected areas prior to next step. – Wire brushing and wipe down with mildew fungicide of affected cement surfaces. – HEPA vacuuming after completion of above steps. [ 35 ] He recommended to Plaintiff to proceed with decontamination work which would meet the guidelines of the industry. Plaintiff instructed Mr.

Martin to do both the decontamination work and the reconstruction of the basement. Mr. Martin filed the decontamination description in Court, together with the reconstruction quote. Plaintiff incurred expenses totalling $26,926.97 in that respect. The reconstruction of the basement was completed in November 2011.

The quantum of damages [ 36 ] The claim, in the amount of $34,685.99, is detailed as follows: – Demolition and container for rotten material. – Decontamination work and reconstruction of the basement. – Building materials. – Plumbing materials such as shower, toilet, etc. – Inspections and experts’ reports (Multipro, Crisman, Lorimax, Cyr). ANALYSIS [ 37 ] Plaintiff's claim relies on the warranty of quality of the seller, as per sections 1726 and following of C.C.Q . The following are the most relevant sections considering the facts of the present case: 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 any need of expert assistance. 1727.

If the property perishes by reason of a latent defect that existed at the time of the sale, the loss is borne by the seller, who is bound to restore the price; if the loss results from superior force or is due to the fault of the buyer, the buyer shall deduct from his claim the value of the property in the state it was in at the time of the loss. 1728. If the seller was aware or could not have been unaware of the latent defect, he is bound not only to restore the price, but to pay all damages suffered by the buyer .

1739. A buyer who ascertains that the property is defective may give notice in writing of the defect to the seller only within a reasonable time after discovering it. The time begins to run, where the defect appears gradually, on the day that the buyer could have suspected the seriousness and extent of the defect.

The seller may not invoke tardy notice from the buyer if he was aware of the defect or could not have been unaware of it. (Our underlinings) [ 38 ] Firstly, the Court finds that Defendants were not aware or could not have been aware of the latent defects discovered by Plaintiff in June 2011. [ 39 ] Defendants sold their house seven years after they finished the basement and used the bathroom on a regular basis, with no problem related to humidity, foul smell or water infiltration. Considering Defendants’ clear and credible testimony and considering the wording of

Section 1726 C.C.Q ., the Court finds that Defendants cannot be held liable for the moral damages in the amount of $5,000 claimed by Plaintiff. [ 40 ] As for Plaintiff's claim for reduction of the selling price, the Court points out that she has the burden of demonstrating the following: – The defects discovered were serious. – The defects were not known to her but existed at the time of sale. – The defects were latent. – Defendants were given notice of the discovery of the defects within a reasonable delay [1] .

The Mold [ 41 ] The Court concludes from the evidence presented that the mold discovered by Plaintiff and her husband was a serious problem which they were not aware of prior to June 2011. Plaintiff was clearly astonished when Mr. Mace discovered the mold. She was worried about her family. She was determined to clean the basement to avoid health hazards.

Her testimony was poised and credible with obvious concern to give precise answers and not exaggerate. [ 42 ] In addition, considering that Plaintiff did not work in the basement before June 2011 and the last renovations took place in 1992, there are serious, precise and concordant presumptions that the latent defects existed at the time of sale. Furthermore, at least three witnesses (Messrs.

Crisan, Cyr and Martin), explained that the problem discovered had developed for several years prior to its discovery. [ 43 ] Finally, considering the circumstances in which the mold was discovered, there is no doubt in the Court’s mind that this defect was latent. [ 44 ] The issue raised by Defendants is whether they were deprived of verifying the existence and extent of the defect when it was discovered and the need to demolish, decontaminate and rebuild part of the basement.

Their contention is that they were not informed of the discovery of the mold prior to the demolition of the bathroom and the adjacent room. In that respect, they plead that they were informed a posteriori, and argue that Plaintiff’s omission is fatal to her claim. They filed authorities supporting their argument [2] . [ 45 ] Defendants' contention regarding the demolition phase is well founded. They were informed by Plaintiff of the discovery of the mold after the demolition was completed and after the bin was removed. In that respect, they were presented with a fait accompli .

Consequently, Plaintiff cannot recover the expenses incurred for the demolition and the container. [ 46 ] However, the Court must consider Plaintiff's testimony that there was no change whatsoever made in the basement between the time of Mr. Edwards' and Mr. Martin's visits.

In addition, the proof demonstrates that following the completion of the demolition work, it was possible for several experts to observe the following: – The slope in the basement. – The uncovered drainage system. – The lack of a vapour barrier. – Discoloration of the concrete slab. – The mold on the door frame. – The drain with the silicon. – The electrical panel. [ 47 ] More specifically, Mr. Martin, a decontamination expert, saw and examined the basement as late as October 2011 and testified as to his findings:

– Microbiological growth on the plywood and the 2 x 4’s. – Black spotting. – Discoloration of the concrete slab. – Uncovered drainage. [ 48 ] His findings led him to suggest a decontamination method to Plaintiff. [ 49 ] If it was possible for Mr. Martin to make these observations and findings in October, Mr. Edwards should have been able to make similar observations on July 30th. In other words, although the basement was demolished by the time Defendants and their expert came, it was still possible to make substantial findings with respect to the existence of the mold and the extent of the problem.

There is no proof whatsoever that an analysis of the rotten material or mold would have, in any way, contributed to exonerate Defendants’ liability. [ 50 ] The facts of the present case must be distinguished from those discussed in the jurisprudence pleaded by Defendants as only demolition, and not repairs, was done before Defendants were informed of Plaintiff’s discovery. [ 51 ] It is relevant to cite an extract of author Jobin, in La Vente [3] : 169 – Préavis. Sanction – Le préavis constitue une condition de fond de la garantie.

Comme dans l’ancienne jurisprudence, lorsqu’il n’a pas été donné et qu’aucune exemption ne s’applique, l’action intentée par l’acheteur contre le vendeur doit donc en principe être rejetée, selon la jurisprudence. Il s’agit certes d’une sanction sévère. Elle est justifiée quand l’acheteur a réparé le bien ou l’a revendu sans laisser au vendeur la chance de vérifier s’il s’agit bel et bien d’un vice couvert par la garantie, notamment.

Il n’en reste pas moins que cette « technicalité » permet alors au vendeur d’échapper à toute sanction alors que normalement l’acheteur aurait droit au moins à une réduction du prix, ou souvent à la résolution, ainsi qu’à des dommages-intérêts dans bien des cas. C’est ce qui explique les nombreuses dispenses de préavis, signalées plus haut.

Pour cette même raison, on a décidé, avec raison selon nous, que la sanction devrait être radicale (rejet de l’action) uniquement lorsque l’omission du préavis a privé le vendeur de la possibilité de vérifier l’existence et la gravité du vice et de le réparer; qu’une simple diminutioin des dommages-intérêts ou un ajustement à la baisse de la réduction du prix conviendrait mieux aux cas où le défaut de préavis a simplement privé le vendeur de la possibilité de réparer lui-même le vice à meilleur compte. Une comparaison avec la Convention de Vienne , l’une des sources principales de notre

article 1739, plaide en faveur d’une certaine souplesse dans la sanction du préavis.

En effet, cette convention présente deux facettes sur ce point précis : d’une part, elle fait de l’envoi du préavis une obligation stricte que l’acheteur doit respecter sous peine de déchéance (article 39, paragraphe 1); d’autre part, elle laisse subsister la réduction du prix et les dommages-intérêts quand l’acheteur n’a pas donné le préavis selon les prescriptions mais qu’il présente une excuse raisonnable et – exception remarquable – elle exempte l’acheteur de tout avis quand le vendeur connaissait ou est présumé avoir connu la non-conformité (article 40).

Une autre solution possible au défaut de préavis, enfin, consisterait à rejeter l’action avec dépens en permettant à l’acheteur de se pourvoir de nouveau après avoir donné un préavis en bonne et due forme. Ne serait-ce pas là toutefois édulcorer l’exigence du préavis et le confondre totalement avec la mise en demeure? (Our underlinings) [ 52 ] The Court finds that Defendants were not deprived of observing the mold (namely on the door frame), the slope, the absence of a vapour barrier, the discoloration of the concrete slab and the uncovered drainage system.

Therefore, the fact that the demolition took place before Plaintiff sent Defendants her notice under

Section 1739 C.C.Q ., is not fatal to her claim. [ 53 ] Defendants' argument must be set aside in that respect.

Damages related to the mold [ 54 ] In light of the foregoing, the Court grants, in part, Plaintiff’s claim for a reduction of the selling price due to the discovery of the mold and awards $28,178.13, detailed as follows: – ServiceMaster, minus the electrical work (which is discussed below): $25,005.13 – Réno-Dépôt: building and plumbing materials: $1,919.83 – Inspection and experts’ reports: ▪ Multipro Plus inc.: $398.74 ▪ Crisman Renovations inc.: $170.88 ▪ Rénald Cyr: $683.55 The electrical wiring [ 55 ] The proof offered does not convince the Court that the claim regarding the electrical wiring qualifies as either a latent or a serious defect.

[ 56 ] Two witnesses were heard on these specific issues: Mr. Cyr on behalf of Plaintiff and Mr. Edwards on behalf of Defendants. The contradictory testimonies lead the Court to conclude that Plaintiff failed to establish by preponderant evidence the seriousness of the defect and that it was latent. [ 57 ] In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claim in that respect. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS, in part, Elizabeth Russell’s claim against Mike Venditti and Gabriella Corradi; CONDEMNS Mike Venditti and Gabriella Corradi to pay Elizabeth Russell $28,178.13 with interest at the legal rate together with the additional indemnity foreseen by

Section 1619 C.C.Q. as of July 15, 2011; THE WHOLE , with costs, including the fees of experts Martin, Cyr and Crisan for their presence at the hearing. ____________________________ JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q . Me Stéphanie R.-Robichaud De Chantal, D’Amour, Fortier Plaintiff’s attorney Me Bogdan Draghia Draghia Avocats Defendants’ attorney Hearing dates: February 6 and 7, 2013