Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Norgéreq claimed additional compensation for installing kitchen hoods, arguing they were not included in the original contract scope.

• The court found the range hoods were clearly indicated in the architectural and electrical plans and thus part of the fixed-price contract.

• Norgéreq failed to prove that the work was unforeseen or wrongly excluded from its bid estimate.

• The court emphasized a contractor’s duty to identify inconsistencies before bidding, rejecting claims of ambiguity or non-disclosure.

• Expert testimony on technical drawings and construction standards was accepted and supported the defendant’s position.

• The claim was dismissed, and CHJM was awarded full costs, including $8,000 in expert fees.

Facts of the case

Norgéreq ltée, a general contractor, entered into a fixed-price contract with the Corporation d’habitation Jeanne-Mance (CHJM) following a public tender for the renovation of 60 residential units and common areas. The contract, valued at $6.9 million, required a complete interior refurbishment. Norgéreq later filed a lawsuit in the Civil Division of the Court of Québec seeking $35,224.80 for the supply and installation of kitchen range hoods, claiming this work was not included in the original scope as defined in the tender plans and specifications.

Norgéreq argued that the installation of the range hoods was not specifically outlined in the mechanical plans and therefore fell outside its obligations. It claimed to have discovered the need for this work only after the start of construction and treated the installation as a change that should trigger additional payment.

Legal issues

The court had to determine whether the kitchen hoods were part of the original contract obligations under the plans and specifications. A secondary issue was whether CHJM was entitled to reimbursement of expert fees incurred in defending the case.

Court’s analysis and reasoning

The court rejected Norgéreq’s interpretation. It found that the range hoods were clearly indicated in both the architectural and electrical plans, including model specifications and installation notes. The court concluded that Norgéreq had a duty to reconcile discrepancies in the tender documents before submitting its bid. It emphasized that contractors must scrutinize all plan types—mechanical, architectural, and electrical—and raise questions during the bidding phase, not after the work has begun.

The court held that the hood installation involved recirculating units with carbon filters, classifiable as electrical installations rather than ventilation systems requiring ductwork. Therefore, the court rejected Norgéreq’s argument that the work fell exclusively under mechanical disciplines. It also found no evidence that CHJM had misled or failed to disclose relevant information.

Norgéreq's failure to account for the work in its bid or raise timely objections eliminated any entitlement to additional compensation under article 2109 of the Civil Code of Québec, which governs claims in fixed-price construction contracts. The court also found Norgéreq’s expert evidence insufficient and gave greater weight to CHJM’s expert, whose technical testimony clarified plan interpretation.

Conclusion and outcome

The Court of Québec dismissed Norgéreq’s claim for $35,224.80. It found the work was included in the original contract scope and that Norgéreq failed to demonstrate any entitlement to additional payment. The court awarded CHJM costs, including $8,000 for expert fees. The decision reaffirms the importance of contractors fully understanding and pricing all elements shown in contract drawings and specifications before submitting fixed-price bids.