2014 QCCQ 9113, 2014 QCCQ 9113

Fox c. Reliance Construction inc. 2014 QCCQ 9113 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-133429-128 DATE: August 15, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY EDWARDS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LILLIAN FOX Plaintiff v. RELIANCE CONSTRUCTION INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ Context [ 1 ] Plaintiff Lillian Fox is the owner of a duplex in Westmount, Quebec which is located within 75 metres of a new construction built by the Defendant Reliance Construction Inc. as general contractor for the owners, Immeubles Greene & De Maisonneuve Inc. and Ramco Development Inc. [ 2 ] Ms. Fox submits that the new construction caused cracks in the plaster walls of the main floor and second floor units of her duplex.

Defendant denies any liability on the basis that the cracks complained of were not caused by the construction work and, in any event, it cannot be held liable as it respected all applicable regulations concerning vibrations. Position of Ms. Lillian Fox [ 3 ] The Plaintiff’s property was built in approximately 1896. It is a town house with fieldstone (moellons) foundations. The condo complex of Defendant was built in autumn 2011. Plaintiff states that in February 2012, she received a note (Exhibit P-1) from her tenant on the ground floor, Ms.

Danièle Laroche that cracks had appeared in the plaster walls of her unit since the start of the construction and elsewhere in the building. Ms. Fox wrote to the Defendant and advised that she held it responsible for the cracks (Exhibit P-2). Based upon the evidence heard by the Court, the unit had been previously repainted in March 2007. [ 4 ] Ms. Laroche stated in her testimony that she does not recall seeing other cracks in walls and that they really became apparent after Defendant’s construction project was started. She states that she works from home so that she sees the premises all the time. [ 5 ] Mr.

Edmond Nash is the tenant of the second floor unit. Prior to Defendant’s construction project, this unit was only repainted in 1998. He states that he could recall some cracks in the plaster prior to the construction work in 2011. But he states that he believes new cracks appeared after that construction. The replastering and painting work was recently done in 2013 (after the legal proceedings were instituted in May 2012). He also states that a new crack has appeared after the recent renovation and repainting work. [ 6 ] Ms.

Fox files in the Court record an estimate, invoices and proof of payment for plaster and painting work for the downstairs

($1,300) and upstairs ($3,745) (Exhibits P-4 to P-7), totalling $5,045. Plaintiff claims this amount. In addition, she claims $2,600 as an indemnity to her tenants for having to move out during the work. However, in the end, the work was done and the tenants did not need to vacate the premises and did not require any indemnification. Nevertheless, Ms. Fox still maintains that claim and states that it would be paid to her tenants if she received it. As Plaintiff received no satisfactory answer from Defendant, Ms. Fox instituted proceedings on May 4, 2012.

Position of Defendant Reliance Construction of Canada [ 7 ] Defendant does not own the property on which the condo complex was built. It acted as the general contractor who was hired by the owner (Ramco Developpement Inc. or a related company). The owner also hired a firm, Consultants Dury (“Dury”) who did an inspection of the cracks complained of by Ms. Fox and prepared a report dated July 6, 2012.

As will be explained later, Consultants Dury was also retained by the owner, during the construction work, to monitor the level of vibrations and sounds for the initial phase of construction. [ 8 ] The full report with annexes of the report was filed as Exhibit D-2 by Defendant only several weeks before the Court hearing on May 15, 2014, in addition to other exhibits regarding the inspection of the cracks (Exhibits D-3 and D-4). In its report, Dury explained that it was hired by the owner to monitor the vibrations of the work performed by Defendant during the construction.

In that capacity, it attests that there was no dynamiting, only excavation and the driving of piles into the ground. The report states, and the author Paul P. Kuznik, Engineer, testified that all vibrations for the work during this phase were monitored by his firm. He states that this phase is the loudest, most invasive and potentially disturbing to the neighbourhood and the residents located in the area of a construction project.

He also testified that all of the vibrations generated by the construction project in issue were within the prescribed limits authorized under the rules of the City of Westmount regulations [1] . Furthermore, he testified that, before construction work began, inspections were made of properties within a perimeter of 50 metres from the worksite. As Ms. Fox’s property is at a distance of 75 metres from the work site, it was not inspected at that time. [ 9 ] After Ms. Fox’s claim was received, Mr. Kuznik of Dury examined the cracks that she claims were caused by the construction project. In his report, Mr.

Kuznik analyzed them and made the following comments [2] : Photo no Description 1 à 6 app. 2 : séjour / salon N – fissure verticale sur le mur – noircissement des fissures, écaillement et érosion – signe de vieillesse des fissures 7 et 8 app. 2 : séjour / salon N – fissure diagonale sur le plafond – noircissement de la fissure, gonflement et écaillement – signe de vieillesse de la fissure 9 et 10 app. 2 : chambre N-W – fissure diagonale sur le mur – noircissement de la fissure, défaut typique pour un mur en plâtre rénové il y a plus de 9 ans 11 et 12 app. 2 : toilette – fissures typiques non réclamées sur le mur 13 à 15 app. 2 : toilette – fissure diagonale sur le plafond, agrandie selon le locataire – noircissement de la fissure, défaut typique pour un mur en plâtre rénové il y a plus de 9 ans 16 et 17 app. 1 : hall – fissure verticale sur le mur – signes de réparation antérieure, noircissement et gonflement de la fissure – signes de vieillesse de la fissure 18 et 19 app. 1 : hall – écaillement et soulèvement de peinture sur le mur – défaut causé par l’assèchement du plâtre et changements de température et d’humidité, non représentatif des travaux de construction et d’enfoncement des pieux 20 app. 1 : bureau sud – écaillement et soulèvement de peinture sur le mur – fissures – défaut causé par l’assèchement du plâtre et changements de température et d’humidité, non représentatif des travaux de construction et d’enfoncement des pieux 21 et 23 app. 1 : bureau sud – fissures, écaillement et soulèvement de peinture sur le mur – défaut causé par l’assèchement du plâtre et changements de température et d’humidité, non représentatif des travaux de construction et d’enfoncement des pieux 22 app. 1 : bureau sud – fissures et soulèvement de peinture sur le mur 24 et 25 app. 1 : bureau sud – fissures au-dessus de la porte sur le mur et plafond – signes d’un léger noircissement 26 à 28 app. 1 : bureau sud – fissures diagonales sur le mur au-dessus de la porte – noircissement de la fissure, défaut typique pour un mur en plâtre rénové il y a plus de 9 ans

[ 10 ] Mr. Kuznik concluded that the cracks complained of are either old, pre-date or unrelated to the construction project.

He states as follows [3] in Exhibit D-2: « Les défauts intérieurs réclamés sont d’apparence ancienne (noircissement, écaillement, érosion, etc.) et ne sont pas représentatifs des travaux d’enfoncement des pieux, mais probablement reliés à plusieurs causes ou facteurs qui pourraient inclure : changement de température et d’humidité, assèchement et vieillissement de la charpente en bois, changements chimiques du mortier, briques, plâtre et stucco, fatigue et vieillissement des couvertures des murs, charges induites par le poids de la structure elle-même provoquant des mouvements structuraux, les mouvements différentiels des sols, etc.

Avec le temps, toutes ces causes contribuent à la fissuration des murs intérieurs même si la structure n’est pas assujettie à des vibrations causées par les travaux de construction. Dans le cadre de notre mandat de préinspection, notre firme a visité plus de 40 logements résidentiels et/ou commerciaux des rues avoisinant le chantier de construction. Certains de ces logements étaient situés de 10 à 20 m des travaux d’enfoncement des pieux.

Nous avons également visité les logements d’un bâtiment résidentiel situé sur la ligne de propriété, situé à moins de 1 m de l’excavation, et aucune réclamation n’a été formulée, sauf le bâtiment sous étude du présent rapport. Les défauts notés dans la plupart des logements résidentiels et/ou commerciaux centenaires, comme celui de Mme Fox, visités avant le début des travaux, ont été similaires aux dommages réclamés au […] à Westmount. Ces dommages sont représentatifs de l’état normal des bâtiments du quartier et témoignent de l’âge des logements à proximité des travaux.

Tous les bâtiments sont soumis à de nombreuses variations de température et d’humidité. Ces nombreuses variations cycliques à travers les saisons font travailler toutes les composantes d’un bâtiment (contraction-dilatation) et après plusieurs années, les fissures réparées réapparaissent aux mêmes endroits. Ces fissures se créent naturellement après un certain laps de temps.

Les rénovations mineures dans une résidence, telles que la peinture des surfaces intérieures, sont recommandées à tous les cinq (5) à huit (8) ans afin de corriger et réparer les dommages cosmétiques apparus depuis les derniers travaux. » [ 11 ] And [4] : « Comme plusieurs études le démontrent, les variations de température et d’humidité peuvent produire des contraintes dans les structures et leurs composantes allant jusqu’à une vibration équivalente de 30,0 à 76,0 mm/sec.

De plus, le United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) avait effectué de nombreuses études afin d’établir des niveaux sécuritaires de dynamitage et autres travaux pour protéger des bâtiments contre des dommages. Ainsi, selon le graphique présenté par USBM et l’intensité des vibrations générées par les travaux de l’ordre de 0,5 mm/sec (0,02 po/sec), la probabilité que ces niveaux de vibration causent des dommages serait presque 0%.» Analysis and Decision [ 12 ] According to the technical report filed, which is uncontested in that Ms.

Fox did not file a counter-report and declared that she did not desire or intend to do so, all of the cracks except one at the premises appear old, typical of age of the property and result from normal movements of the structure and materials of the property over time. It is to be noted that some of the cracks (indicated at photos 11 and 12 of the Dury report) are not claimed by Ms. Fox and as such it is acknowledged that some cracks existed before the construction work. [ 13 ] It appears that one crack (photo 22) is new or more recent and does not appear old or darkened.

But, apart from its minor and isolated character, it must be stated that the burden of proof [5] is on Ms. Fox to establish that Defendant’s work caused this crack. With due respect, the Court does not consider that Ms. Fox has discharged that burden. With regard to the cracks complained of, it is more likely that they developed over time for the upstairs over the last 3 years and for the downstairs over the last thirteen years in accordance with their appearance and as shown by the photos annexed in support of the report, Exhibit P-2.

As it has been established by the proof that even subsequent to the replastering and painting of the walls by Ms. Fox, other cracks appeared, it is likely that the crack referred to at photo 22 was caused by minor movement unrelated to Defendant’s construction project. [ 14 ] The Court is aware that Mr. Kuznik and Dury may not be entirely objective in their report. Since Dury had the mandate to

monitor the vibrations during the work, it has an interest in showing that Ms. Fox’s claim is unfounded or perhaps Dury could have been at fault regarding its mandate to monitor the level of vibrations and noise resulting from the excavation and piling work. But this factor has been considered by the Court in its evaluation of the proof and testimony and Mr. Kuznik was subject to examination by the Court [6] . [ 15 ] Defendant had an additional ground of defence, namely that the vibrations made respected the limits prescribed by the applicable legislation.

It is to be noted that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided in St-Lawrence Cement Inc. vs. Barrette [7] that the liability for neighbourhood disturbances under

Article 976 C.C.Q. is not subject to a finding of fault, but is rather based on a no-fault test as to whether the inconveniencies caused are excessive in the given factual context. It may be that such liability only exists with regard to the owner of the land causing the inconvenience.

However, the owner of the land is not sued in the present legal proceedings, only the general contractor. [ 16 ] It is not necessary for the Court to decide whether the same rule applies to the general contractor acting for the owner since the finding of fact of the lack of causality between the alleged damages and the actions of Defendant renders that question moot. [ 17 ] The Court will therefore dismiss the motion. Since the Defendant Reliance Construction Inc. only completed, forwarded and filed the expert report of Dury D-2 after the institution of the proceedings by Ms.

Fox, the motion will be dismissed without costs. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff’s motion; WITHOUT COSTS . __________________________________ Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 6, 2014