Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Homeowner alleged poor workmanship and incomplete services following a flooring and ceramic installation contract

• Verbal agreement between parties created ambiguity over the scope and expectations of the work

• Evidence included photographs, receipts, and oral testimony highlighting gaps in work quality and communication

• Defendant contractor denied responsibility, attributing problems to subcontractors and the homeowner’s decisions

• Court analyzed credibility of both parties under the Civil Code of Québec and weighed the balance of probabilities

• Judgment awarded partial damages to the homeowner for deficient flooring and incomplete work, reducing for contributory factors.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff, Massad, hired D.B. Céramique et Parquetage inc. to perform flooring and ceramic installation work at her residence. The agreement between the parties was verbal, with no written contract to clearly outline the scope of work, pricing structure, or timelines. The renovations involved levelling floors, installing wood and ceramic materials, and preparing the subfloor. Shortly after the work began, issues surfaced. The plaintiff alleged that the ceramic was improperly laid, the floor levelling was poor, and gaps or damage appeared in the final finish. She also claimed that the contractor failed to complete the job entirely, including not returning to finish outstanding elements despite requests.

Arguments and evidence

The plaintiff submitted photographic evidence of the alleged defects, receipts related to the materials purchased, and screenshots of communication with the contractor. She stated that she had paid for materials and expected a professional finish, which she did not receive. The defendant denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the homeowner changed the scope midway and interfered with the work by purchasing materials or insisting on certain methods. The contractor also placed some of the blame on the subcontractor. Both parties offered conflicting versions of the events, and no independent expert opinion was filed to assess the technical aspects of the deficiencies. The dispute largely turned on credibility and consistency of each party’s narrative.

Assessment by the court

The Court of Québec emphasized that the plaintiff bore the burden of proof to demonstrate the contractual defects and resulting damages. While some allegations were unsubstantiated or lacked corroborating documentation, others were supported by visual and testimonial evidence. The judge noted that while the work was not entirely defective, some aspects fell below acceptable standards of professional execution. Given the absence of a written agreement, the court inferred the contractual terms based on reasonable expectations and custom in similar service relationships.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff in part, awarding $2,610 in damages to compensate for the defective flooring, incomplete work, and related inconvenience. The judgment took into account that some of the difficulties stemmed from poor communication and lack of formality between the parties, but ultimately held the contractor responsible for failing to deliver work that met basic standards. Costs were also awarded in accordance with usual practice.