2023 QCCQ 11, 2023 QCCQ 11

Goshko c. Gauvin 2023 QCCQ 11 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Court CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL “Civil Division” No: 500-32-709190-195 DATE: January 11, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE DUGRÉ, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LENORA GOSHKO Plaintiff v.

WILBROD GAUVIN Defendant __________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Lenora Goshko is suing Wilbrod Gauvin further to unfinished kitchen renovation work that started in November 2018 and was never completed. [ 2 ] In October 2018, a written agreement intervenes [1] whereby Mr. Gauvin agrees to perform the renovation work in Ms. Goshko’s kitchen for $6,000. [ 3 ] On November 21 st , 2018, the work ends abruptly. As a result, Ms. Goshko’s kitchen remains unfunctional for several months. [ 4 ] Ms.

Goshko is now claiming $3,000 in damages and expenses incurred to hire other contractors to complete the work. [ 5 ] Mr. Gauvin denies any liability on the basis that he could not pursue the work because Ms. Goshko fired him on November 21 st , 2018. [ 6 ] The only issue in dispute is whether Ms. Goshko is entitled to obtain some damages, including the reimbursement of the amounts paid to a contractor to do the work that Mr. Gauvin had undertaken to perform but did not complete. [ 7 ] The Court answers positively to this question for the following reasons. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 8 ] Ms. Goshko hires Mr.

Gauvin on a few occasions between 2014 and 2018 to perform some minor repair work in her house. In 2018, she contacts him to obtain an estimate for renovation work in her kitchen, mainly changing the counter, the drawers, and the cupboard’s doors. [ 9 ] According to the written agreement, [2] Mr. Gauvin agrees to perform the work for $6,000. He explains at trial that he is to perform the work with an assistant, Jean, and that both of them work at the hourly rate of $35. [ 10 ] Both parties admit that the work ends abruptly on November 21 st , 2018. According to Ms. Goshko, Mr. Gauvin simply abandons the project.

He picks up his tools and never comes back. [ 11 ] But, according to Mr. Gauvin, it is Ms. Goshko who fires him on November 21 st and orders him to never come back. [ 12 ] Ms. Goshko insists that she tries to contact Mr. Gauvin on several occasions after November 21 st and Mr. Gauvin does not follow up. [ 13 ] The photos filed by Ms. Goshko as exhibits [3] show the terrible conditions in which Mr. Gauvin leaves Ms. Goshko’s kitchen on November 21 st , 2018, with no counters, no drawers nor cupboard’s doors. [ 14 ] On April 18, 2019, Ms. Goshko sends a registered demand letter [4] to Mr.

Gauvin, after having had to hire a private investigator to locate him. In this letter, she mentions that after Mr. Gauvin fled the renovation site on November 21 st , she contacted him on four occasions to ask him to complete the job and gave him 60 days to do so. She claims $3,000 for her damages for his failure to fulfill his undertakings and finish the work. [ 15 ] On May 7, 2019, Mr. Gauvin answers the demand letter and insists that he performed the work he undertook to do. At trial, he

also files exhibit of invoices from renovation stores [5] to demonstrate that he bought material and equipment. [ 16 ] On September 4, 2019, Ms. Goshko contracts with Cuisine Newzone to complete the work at the cost of $2,937.61. [6] [ 17 ] Mr. Gauvin admits having received an amount of $7,100 from Ms. Goshko, but he claims that this amount was only for the work performed until November 21 st . [ 18 ] This version cannot stand because the initial agreement [7] states that Mr.

Gauvin was to do “kitchen renovation – cabinet doors, install counters, check plumbing” for a total amount of $6,000. [ 19 ] Despite significant contradictions between the parties’ testimonies, the Court believes that Ms. Goshko’s version is more credible than Mr. Gauvin’s. If, as Mr. Gauvin contends, Ms.

Goshko fired him while the work was unfinished, why would she have tried to contact him several times to ask him to complete the work, and why would she have sent him a demand letter in April 2019 before deciding, as she was left with no other choice, to hire another contractor to finish the work? [ 20 ] The Court concludes that Ms. Goshko has met her burden of proof [8] by demonstrating that Mr. Gauvin abandoned the renovation site on November 21 st , 2018, causing her damages, troubles, and inconveniences in addition to forcing her to hire another contractor.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS Lenora Goshko’s demand; CONDEMNS Wilbrod Gauvin to pay to Lenora Goshko $3,000 with interests at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec since the demand letter of April 18, 2019; THE WHOLE WITH LEGAL COSTS paid by Ms. Goshko in the amount of $103. __________________________________ MÉLANIE DUGRÉ, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : December 15, 2022