Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff invoked a redhibitory action under Article 1726 C.c.Q., alleging the shelter had a hidden defect that led to its collapse.

• Bestland, as a professional seller, was subject to a triple presumption favoring the buyer once premature deterioration was shown.

• The court rejected Bestland’s defenses including improper installation, inadequate maintenance, and force majeure due to insufficient or speculative evidence.

• Testimony from Bestland's representative lacked credibility and failed to rebut presumptions regarding the hidden defect.

• The shelter’s design lacked crossbars later added in newer models, supporting the existence of a pre-sale design defect.

• The plaintiff was awarded the refund of the purchase price but not the transport costs due to insufficient proof of damage.

Facts and procedural background

In September 2021, 9096-9486 Québec inc. purchased a dome-shaped shelter from Bestland Canada Industriel inc., a professional seller of storage shelters. On January 9, 2022, the shelter collapsed under snow. The buyer alleged a hidden defect, specifically the absence of crossbars in the shelter’s design, which led to the structural failure. The buyer claimed that after the incident, the same shelter was being advertised with crossbars, implying a design change that corrected the issue.

The buyer initiated a redhibitory action under Article 1726 of the Civil Code of Québec, seeking cancellation of the sale and a refund of the purchase price of $3,104.33. They also sought reimbursement of transport costs incurred during the shelter's pickup. Bestland contested the claim, alleging that the buyer improperly installed the shelter on uneven ground and failed to remove accumulated snow. They further argued that extraordinary snowfall constituted force majeure, and that any design issue was visible and known to the buyer.

Legal analysis and court’s findings

The court found that the buyer met the burden required to trigger the legal presumptions applicable when purchasing from a professional seller. The shelter collapsed within months, constituting premature deterioration of the good. Bestland did not offer credible or sufficient evidence to rebut these presumptions. Assertions regarding installation faults, lack of maintenance, or snow load were unsupported by expert evidence and largely speculative. Photographs submitted did not clearly demonstrate uneven ground or improper assembly. Claims based on snow accumulation were contradicted by evidence that other nearby shelters remained intact.

Bestland’s witness was found to lack credibility. He did not visit the site and based his conclusions on photographs. Some claims he made were factually incorrect, including misrepresentations about shelter certifications and the buyer’s residence. The court also noted Bestland failed to respond to a formal notice and made no effort to inspect the shelter or produce expert evidence to establish alternative causes for the collapse.

The court rejected Bestland’s argument that the absence of crossbars was apparent and should have been identified by the buyer. Since the installation manual did not refer to crossbars and the buyer was not an expert in shelter design, the court ruled that the defect was indeed hidden.

The force majeure defense was also dismissed, as heavy snow in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region was not considered an unforeseeable or extraordinary event.

Outcome and conclusion

The court granted the redhibitory action in part. It ordered the cancellation of the sale and instructed Bestland to refund the purchase price of $3,104.33, along with legal interest and an indemnity under Article 1619 C.c.Q. Bestland was permitted to recover the shelter within 90 days or allow the buyer to dispose of it. However, the buyer's claim for transport costs was dismissed due to lack of evidence that those costs would not have been incurred with another supplier.

The ruling reinforced the legal protections for buyers under Québec’s warranty of quality, particularly when dealing with professional sellers. It highlighted the importance of producing reliable evidence and expert assessments in commercial litigation involving alleged defects.