2020 QCCQ 7938, 2020 QCCQ 7938

Williams c. Schembre 2020 QCCQ 7938 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL "Civil Division" No: 500-32-705684-183 DATE: November 23 rd , 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ WAYNE WILLIAMS Plaintiff v.

FILIPO SCHEMBRE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims the value of the work done at the Defendant’s building, consisting of painting, repairs and maintenance work. [ 2 ] The Defendant refuses to pay the Plaintiff alleging that the work was not completed and done properly. THE CONTEXT [ 3 ] In April 2018, the parties agreed on the work to be done at the Defendant’s building consisting of 24 apartments, 4 hallways, the main entrance, and two fire escapes.

According to the Plaintiff, the work to be done consisted in painting the hallway walls, the main entrance, 2 fire escape doors and the outside doors of the 24 apartments with the frames, as well as repairing and plastering the ceiling and applying stucco on the ceiling patches. [ 4 ] The Plaintiff is adamant that he was to supply the material the whole inclusive for an amount of $3,800. [ 5 ] The Defendant disagrees with this proposition stating that the 24 doors were to be painted outside and inside and that the agreed-upon amount was $3,500. [ 6 ] On April 23 rd , 2018, the Plaintiff, with his helper Pierre Grenier, started the work which continued until May 3 rd , 2018, at which time the Defendant terminated the contract. [ 7 ] Upon termination of the contract, the Plaintiff prepared his invoice [1] where he estimated the value of the work not completed at $1,500, less the gallons of paint supplied and estimated the work done and unpaid was $2,144.

In addition, the Plaintiff did additional work outside of the agreement, namely he painted 4 entrance doors and frames, 4 exit doors and frames, 2 garbage chute doors and frames and 2 doors in the main entrance and frames, plus installed a hot water tank. For this additional work, the Plaintiff charged $290, bringing the total value of the work performed by the Plaintiff to $2,434. [ 8 ] On May 13 th , 2018, the Plaintiff sent his demand letter [2] . [ 9 ] The Defendant disagrees with the work completed by the Plaintiff and his helper. According to the Defendant, either the work was not done, or poorly done.

Basically, none of the work performed by the Plaintiff, according to the Defendant, was acceptable. [ 10 ] He provides a series of photos showing a door, portions of a ceiling and stairwell, without giving any indication when, in the course of the work performed by the Plaintiff, these pictures were taken. THE ANALYSIS [ 11 ] The evidence reveals that the Defendant terminated the contract after a dispute regarding the quality and price of the paint supplied by de Defendant or the paint provided by the latter but then the Plaintiff refused to pay. [ 12 ] Mr.

Grenier who testified is adamant that the work was done and was done properly. The Plaintiff submits a series of photos showing the work before and after [3] . [ 13 ] The Defendant complains that the ceilings were not completed. The Plaintiff does not disagree, adding that the Defendant did not provide him with the product to be applied on the ceiling. In any event, he did not charge for this portion of the work. [ 14 ] Prior to undertaking this work, the Plaintiff did work at the Defendant’s own apartment 2 weeks previously. The Defendant

states that it was also very poorly done. In this regard, the credibility of the Defendant is in question as it would be surprising that, had the work done by the Plaintiff not been satisfactory, the Defendant would not have agreed to another contract 2 weeks later. [ 15 ] In addition, it is surprising that the Defendant made no complaints on the quality of the work done by the Plaintiff and Mr. Grenier before terminating the contract. [ 16 ] The Court prefers the testimony of the Plaintiff and that of his helper Mr. Grenier to that of the Defendant.

A disagreement did arise between the parties with respect to the paint and the Defendant simply decided not to pay for the work done by the Plaintiff. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : GRANTS Plaintiff’s action; CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $2,434 plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided at

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec as of May 13 th , 2008, the date of the Demand Letter, plus cost in the amount of $101 representing the judicial stamp of the claim. __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q . Date of hearing: November 18, 2020