Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Sky Interior System Inc. claimed $25,215.60 for unpaid invoices and a 10% contractual holdback on drywall installation and joint work.

• Dargis Construction Inc. refused payment, alleging defects, substantial delays, and damages caused by Sky’s employees.

• The court identified the contract as a service agreement under Article 2098 C.c.Q., subjecting Sky to an obligation of result.

• Dargis’s counterclaim for $22,644.30 in corrective work was rejected due to weak, uncorroborated evidence.

• Sky's representative provided firsthand, credible testimony, unlike Dargis’s witnesses who lacked direct knowledge.

• Judgment was granted in full to Sky, including interest and additional indemnity under Article 1619 C.c.Q.

Facts of the case

In Système intérieur Sky inc. c. Dargis construction inc., 2025 QCCQ 2241, Sky Interior System Inc. (Sky) sued Dargis Construction Inc. (Dargis) for $25,215.60. The claim related to unpaid work for installing gypsum panels and joint finishing in four residential units in Rosemère, Quebec. This amount included three unpaid invoices and a 10% contractual holdback on prior paid invoices. The work was done under a unit price service contract known as “Annexe B.”

Dargis refused to pay, initially citing that the 10% holdback was subject to conditions not yet met. It also claimed defects and delays in Sky’s work and held Sky responsible for alleged damages caused by its workers. Specifically, Dargis claimed that Sky caused plumbing damage in two separate incidents and installed damaged drywall panels. Dargis filed a counterclaim for $22,644.30 to recover repair costs.

Court’s analysis and decision

The court found that the contract between the parties was a service contract under Article 2098 C.c.Q., binding Sky to an obligation of result, particularly regarding construction quality. Sky was required to execute the work according to recognized standards of the trade. Dargis had to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Sky failed to meet its obligations or caused the alleged damages, as per Article 2803 C.c.Q.

In analyzing the first incident—a water leak in unit 190—Dargis presented only photos and invoices. Its witnesses, including the company president and project director, had no direct knowledge of the events. The main witness involved, Jean De Foy, did not testify. The court found their testimony vague and insufficient. By contrast, Sky’s president, Gabriel Lafleur, testified that the plumbing was improperly placed and explained that a standard 1¼ inch screw would not have reached properly installed pipes. He also highlighted the absence of the alleged screw from evidence and noted that the area had no reported floor or ceiling damage.

The second water leak in unit 194 occurred nearly two months after Sky had left the site. Dargis again failed to provide direct evidence, relying instead on undocumented photos and invoices. The court found no proof that Sky was responsible. Additionally, Dargis never informed Sky of the incident before making repairs, depriving Sky of the opportunity to verify or remedy the situation.

Regarding the drywall panels, Lafleur testified that they were delivered already damaged—materials having been provided by Dargis. Despite visible imperfections, Dargis’s representative, Jean De Foy, had ordered Sky to proceed due to project delays. Lafleur stated that such defects could be corrected during joint application and were not structural. The court agreed, finding no fault attributable to Sky.

Outcome

The court concluded that Sky had proven its entitlement to the full amount claimed, and Dargis had failed to meet the evidentiary standard for its counterclaim. The court rejected all claims of construction defects, fault, or damages alleged against Sky.

Accordingly, the Court:

• Allowed Sky’s claim in full for $25,215.60

• Ordered Dargis to pay legal interest and the additional indemnity under Article 1619 C.c.Q., effective from August 24, 2022

• Dismissed Dargis’s counterclaim

• Condemned Dargis to pay judicial costs

This judgment, issued by the Honourable Jimmy Vallée, J.C.Q., on May 22, 2025, confirms Sky Interior System Inc. as the prevailing party.