Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff claimed payment for additional construction work allegedly authorized verbally after the start of a flooring contract.

• Defendants argued the contract was capped at $3,000 and denied any consent to modify or expand the work.

• The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that the additional work was unforeseen and authorized by the owner or his on-site representative.

• Defendants’ credibility was undermined by contradictions, late procedural arguments, and lack of documented objections to the work.

• A counterclaim alleging procedural abuse was rejected due to insufficient and delayed medical evidence.

• The legal hypothec filed for unpaid work was upheld as valid given the refusal to pay and good faith actions by the plaintiff.

Facts of the case

Préparation Surprep inc. was hired to perform floor preparation work on a property located in Morin-Heights, Quebec. The property was co-owned by Gestion Campus Corbusier ltée and Marc Lupien. A written estimate provided by Surprep listed the work at $4,750 before taxes, though the final invoice issued was $20,572.48. Surprep alleged that the increased amount was due to unforeseen site conditions and verbally approved additional work. The work included removal of multiple layers of vinyl, repair of concrete slab holes, removal of terrazzo borders, and emergency preparation of a bathroom floor.

Surprep initially filed the case as a proceeding for forced surrender and taking in payment based on a registered legal construction hypothec. During the course of litigation, the parties agreed to substitute security in place of the hypothec. The plaintiff then asked the court to confirm the value of its claim through a monetary judgment.

The defendants denied ever consenting to work beyond the initial contract and claimed that Surprep was not authorized to charge above $3,000. They also filed a counterclaim seeking damages for alleged procedural abuse, arguing that Surprep unfairly opposed an adjournment request despite a submitted medical note.

Legal issues before the court

The central issues were whether the defendants authorized a modification to the original service estimate, whether the additional work was justified and unforeseeable under article 2107 of the Civil Code of Québec, and whether Surprep committed any procedural misconduct in opposing a postponement of the trial date.

Court’s analysis and reasoning

The Court of Québec reviewed detailed testimonial evidence from both sides. Surprep presented consistent testimony from multiple witnesses stating that Lupien or his representative on-site approved the additional work. The Court found that the extra work arose from defects not foreseeable when the contract was first signed. These included unanticipated concrete repairs and urgent preparation of a bathroom area for upcoming use.

The Court rejected Lupien’s claim that he never approved further work. His credibility was weakened by contradictions between his testimony and written pleadings, failure to send any formal complaint about the work for five years, and new defenses raised only at trial. The judge concluded that the additional work was clearly authorized, reasonably priced, and added value to the property.

Regarding the procedural abuse claim, the court held that Surprep acted reasonably when it contested a trial adjournment. The initial medical note provided by the defense was vague and unreadable, and clearer documentation came too late. Surprep’s objection, though ultimately unsuccessful, was not abusive.

Conclusion and outcome

The Court ruled in favor of Préparation Surprep inc., ordering the defendants—Gestion Campus Corbusier ltée, Marc Lupien, and Nadair International ltée—to pay $20,572.48 plus legal interest and additional indemnity under article 1619 C.C.Q. The legal hypothec was upheld as valid, and the defendants’ counterclaim was dismissed. All defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the principal amount and legal costs.