Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff alleged latent defects in a newly built condo unit purchased from a professional developer.

• Defendant benefited from the legal presumption of defect due to professional seller status but successfully rebutted it.

• Expert evidence and inspection records confirmed several issues were either non-existent, apparent, or minor.

• Plaintiff's lack of prior written notice before repairs led to dismissal of certain claims under the Civil Code.

• Contractual disclosures about approximate dimensions and configurations of the unit defeated allegations of misrepresentation.

• Only one claim—an apparent floorboard defect—was partially allowed, resulting in a modest damages award.

Facts of the case
Hugo Gagnon filed a small claims action against Sotramont Equinoxe Inc., a real estate developer, seeking $15,000 in damages for alleged latent defects in a newly constructed condominium unit. The parties had signed a preliminary contract of sale in December 2019. The unit was inspected in November 2021, followed by the formal sale in December 2021. In March 2023, Gagnon sent a formal notice to the defendant outlining several alleged construction deficiencies, including cracked floor tiles, stained quartz countertops, a non-polished island edge, dimensional irregularities in the unit layout, and an improperly placed terrace. The parties failed to resolve the dispute out of court, prompting Gagnon to file his claim.

Assessment of the latent defect allegations
The Court analyzed the case under articles 1726 and 1729 of the Civil Code of Québec. Because the seller was a professional, article 1729 created a legal presumption that the defects existed at the time of sale. However, the burden then shifted to the defendant to rebut this presumption.

First, regarding the cracked floor tile, the Court accepted expert evidence showing that the tile had likely been cracked due to post-delivery modifications requested by the buyer himself. The expert also noted that the tile was originally covered by trim and that the issue did not impair the functionality of the unit. The claim was dismissed due to insufficient proof of a true latent defect and the plaintiff’s failure to notify the seller prior to making repairs, in violation of articles 1595 and 1739 C.c.Q.

Second, the complaint about stains and an unpolished edge on the quartz kitchen island was also dismissed. The Court found credible the inspection testimony and expert report, both of which confirmed that the issues were either non-existent at the time of delivery or had been accepted by the plaintiff without reservation. Moreover, such issues were visible and thus did not meet the definition of a latent defect.

Third, the allegation that the unit’s layout and terrace placement differed from the buyer’s understanding was rejected. The Court emphasized that the contract and promotional documents repeatedly warned that all measurements and plans were approximate and subject to change. The judge found that no misrepresentation or hidden defect occurred and that the plaintiff had no expert evidence supporting his contrary measurements or layout interpretation.

Claim partially granted for a visible floorboard defect
The only portion of the claim that succeeded related to an apparent floorboard defect at the unit entrance, noted during the pre-sale inspection. While the plaintiff claimed $956.41 to repair it, the expert estimated the cost at $200. In the absence of supporting testimony or justification for the higher amount, the Court exercised its discretion to award $500 in damages, plus $223 in court fees and interest.

Outcome
The Court partially allowed the claim. Sotramont Equinoxe Inc. was ordered to pay $500 in damages and $223 in costs, along with legal interest. All other claims for latent defects were dismissed. The judgment demonstrates how clear contractual disclaimers, early inspections, and credible expert testimony can successfully rebut the presumption of hidden defects, even against a professional seller.