Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The subcontractor claimed unpaid costs for additional sod installation near the completion of a municipal park project.

• A key issue was whether the City of Baie d’Urfé had any contractual or extracontractual obligation toward the subcontractor.

• The court had to determine if the site supervisor from the general contractor had apparent authority to authorize the extra work.

• The municipality denied liability, stating no contract existed between it and the subcontractor.

• The general contractor argued the additional work exceeded what was measured and approved by the City.

• The court applied the doctrine of apparent mandate under article 2163 of the Civil Code of Québec to hold the general contractor liable.

Facts of the case

In Excavation Baie d'Urfé inc. c. Ville de Baie d'Urfé, 2025 QCCQ 2053, the dispute involved a subcontractor, Excavation Baie d’Urfé inc. (“Excavation”), claiming payment of $2,410.43 for additional sod installation performed just before the inauguration of a municipal park. The work was performed under a subcontract with Groupe Relief inc. (“Relief”), which itself had been contracted by the Ville de Baie d’Urfé (“the City”) to complete the park project.

Excavation was not in a direct contractual relationship with the City. It submitted its claim to both the City and Relief, arguing that the work was necessary, authorized, and properly completed. The City denied any responsibility, asserting it had no contract with Excavation. Relief also refused to pay, alleging that the additional work had not been properly measured or approved by City representatives, and therefore fell outside the scope of payment.

Legal analysis on contract and apparent authority

The court first considered whether any contractual or extracontractual liability existed on the part of the City. It concluded that there was no direct contractual link between Excavation and the City. Since the City's only contractual relationship was with Relief, it could not be held liable for payments to a subcontractor unless fault or wrongdoing could be demonstrated. Excavation did not plead or prove such fault, and the court dismissed the claim against the City.

The second issue was whether the site supervisor from Relief had validly authorized the additional sod installation, thus binding Relief to pay for it. The court applied article 2163 of the Code civil du Québec, which recognizes that a person who appears to act as a mandatary (agent) can bind a principal if the third party acts in good faith. Testimony from Excavation’s owner and an employee confirmed they had received clear verbal authorization from Relief’s site supervisor to proceed with the work. This was done to ensure the park’s readiness before its public inauguration the following day.

Relief did not provide testimony from the site supervisor and failed to show that it had taken any steps to warn Excavation that such authorization was invalid. Moreover, the owner of Relief admitted the supervisor had made a mistake by not obtaining written authorization from the City, which would have allowed Relief to later recover those costs. The court found that Relief’s internal missteps did not absolve it of its payment obligations under the apparent authority doctrine.

Outcome

The Court of Québec (Small Claims Division) rejected the claim against the City of Baie d’Urfé but allowed the claim against Groupe Relief inc., ordering it to pay $2,410.43 to Excavation, plus interest and legal indemnity from the date of claim filing. Additionally, Groupe Relief was ordered to pay legal costs of $158. The case confirms the enforceability of obligations arising from apparent authority on construction sites, especially in time-sensitive project phases.