Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the contractor, Les Habitations CBA inc. (CBA), abandoned the kitchen renovation works and thereby breached the renovation contract.
• Contested validity and quantum of amounts billed, including extras (plumbing, container), profits and overhead, against the actual progress and quality of works.
• Assessment of construction deficiencies in cabinetry and tiling based on three expert opinions and their impact on the contractor’s right to payment.
• Legality of registering a construction legal hypothec where advances already exceeded the value of justified work performed.
• Attempt to pierce the corporate veil by seeking personal liability of CBA’s administrator/shareholder, Sébastien Boutin-Lefebvre, without proof of personal fault.
• Evaluation of damages for financial loss, stress, and loss of use, including reimbursement of sums paid under protest, corrective costs, and expert and court fees.

Background and parties

The case arises from a residential renovation dispute heard in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec (Civil Chamber), District of Longueuil. Homeowners Camille Texidor and Lesly Octave wished to refurbish their kitchen, primarily involving replacement and relocation of part of the cabinetry, replacement of floor ceramic tiles supplied by Octave, removal of a countertop, and installation of a backsplash. To carry out these works, Octave entered into a contract dated 25 March 2019 with Les Habitations CBA inc. (CBA), a construction company of which Sébastien Boutin-Lefebvre is an administrator and shareholder. The contract included an estimated total cost of 10,843.93 $ (taxes included), composed of base costs plus 3% general expenses, 5% administration fees and a 10% contractor’s profit. Payment terms called for a 20% initial deposit, progress payments (typically weekly) according to work advancement, and final payment upon completion of the works. In addition, a separate 500 $ fee was agreed before the contract for preparation of the estimate.

Over several days in March and early April 2019, Octave paid CBA a total of 6,500 $. On 9 April 2019, CBA issued a substantial invoice for 10,429.19 $, leaving a claimed balance of 3,929.19 $ after crediting the payments received, and demanded immediate payment of that balance. CBA sought to justify billing at this stage by relying on a contractual “interruption of works” clause, which provided that if works were interrupted for more than five days for a cause beyond the contractor’s control, CBA could invoice for work performed and materials supplied to date, with such amounts payable upon receipt. The contractor argued that, because the countertop (to be supplied and installed by a third party) was not yet in place and some delay was expected before its installation, this clause allowed it to bill the full amount it claimed and to suspend further work.

Disputed billing, extras and scope of work

The court carefully reviewed the content of CBA’s invoice and the underlying cost compilation. The homeowners challenged several items, including a charge of 889.07 $ for a debris container which the contract said CBA would provide. CBA admitted that no container was ever provided, arguing instead that it had removed debris by other means and therefore could still bill for the container. The judge rejected that position, noting the absence of a written, signed modification to the contract authorising such a substitution, as required by the contract itself, and the fact that debris had been found in the owners’ own garbage bins. Consequently, CBA was not entitled to charge for the container.

Another major point concerned a 547.12 $ charge for additional plumbing work that CBA claimed was unforeseeable and outside the original contract. CBA argued that after removing materials it discovered a pipe held together with “duct tape” requiring extra corrective work by a plumber, and said it had informed Octave and forwarded the plumber’s invoice. While Octave acknowledged being told of the issue and receiving a copy of the plumber’s invoice, he disputed that the extra work had in fact been performed and refused to accept liability for this supplemental charge. CBA did not call the plumber to testify, nor did it produce any written, signed change order from Octave agreeing to the extra cost, despite a contractual clause requiring any modification to be recorded in writing and signed by both parties specifying costs, and despite the Civil Code rule that where the price is only an estimate, the contractor bears the burden of justifying any increase. In the absence of persuasive proof that the extra plumbing work was performed and properly authorised, the court found that CBA failed to discharge its burden and could not legitimately bill the 547.12 $.

Beyond these items, the homeowners argued that the state of completion and quality of the works—particularly with respect to the cabinetry and ceramic flooring—did not justify payment of the claimed balance. The court therefore turned to technical evidence on construction quality and defects.

Construction deficiencies and expert evidence

At the parties’ request, three experts inspected the renovation and produced reports; all three testified at trial. There was consensus among the experts that the cabinetry work performed by CBA was deficient. One expert for the homeowners, Charles-Pierre Munn, described the cabinet finish as suitable for a “hunting camp” rather than a residential kitchen, signalling that the workmanship fell far below what a reasonable homeowner could expect. Even the expert retained by CBA, Pierre-Marc Larochelle, accepted that three cabinets needed replacement and one cabinet required correction.

Under the contract, CBA had committed to provide a “luxury” wooden kitchen cabinet and had billed the full contractual amount of 4,445.36 $ (including taxes) for this item. Given the admitted and serious deficiencies evidenced by the experts, the court considered that Octave was justified in withholding a significant part of the amount claimed for the cabinetry.

Similarly, the experts agreed that CBA’s installation of one visibly defective ceramic tile—supplied by Octave—at a location where the defect was apparent constituted deficient workmanship. Although the homeowners had supplied the tiles, the Civil Code requires that when materials supplied by the client have an apparent defect, the contractor must immediately inform the client before using them. Here, CBA had installed the visibly defective tile in a prominent location without warning the owner, thereby breaching this duty.

One of the homeowners’ experts, engineer Laurent Znaty of Tri-spec, produced a broader estimate exceeding 10,000 $ for corrective work in the kitchen. However, the court determined that part of this estimate encompassed work not included in the CBA contract or not performed by CBA, and thus it was not fully relevant to the specific contractual dispute. The court preferred the more targeted assessment by CBA’s own expert, Larochelle, who valued the cost of correcting the specific deficiencies in the cabinets and the defective tile at 2,764.22 $ (taxes included). Taking this expert evidence and the overall state of progress into account, the court concluded that Octave was justified in refusing to pay 3,500 $ of the invoice in relation to cabinetry and ceramic work, in addition to the container and plumbing extras previously disallowed.

The homeowners also raised other issues such as allegedly deficient gypsum installed for the backsplash, an allegedly inadequate transition moulding, and an obstructed ventilation duct. After review of the evidence, the court found that the gypsum and transition moulding did not support a finding of liability on the balance of probabilities, and that the evidence about the ventilation duct was too uncertain to establish a compensable defect. A “kick plate” that did not match the contract specification was noted, but the court observed that CBA had marked it as free of charge on its invoice and therefore no payment was being claimed for it.

Abandonment of works and contractual breach

A central question was whether CBA had abandoned the works, thereby committing a serious contractual breach. The last day of work by CBA was 8 April 2019, when grout was installed in the ceramic flooring by a subcontractor. After that date, CBA never returned to the site. At that time, the countertop—supplied by a third party—had not yet been installed; CBA estimated that a delay of around three weeks would be required before it could be fitted, and explained that for “efficiency” it preferred to wait until the countertop was in place before proceeding with further tasks such as installing the backsplash and finishing work.

The court rejected the notion that this “efficiency” choice constituted a cause outside CBA’s control sufficient to trigger the contractual “interruption of works” clause. CBA could have continued to address outstanding deficiencies and other aspects of the project that were not contingent on the countertop. Instead, as of 9 April CBA effectively stopped work on its own initiative while simultaneously demanding full payment of the invoice balance before returning.

Octave sent an email on 9 April complaining of numerous deficiencies and asking CBA to come see and correct them. CBA responded that several items were unfinished and pointed out that the homeowners had supplied the ceramic tiles, but also agreed to come and inspect. However, it never made any effort to schedule or attend such a visit or to remedy the defects. After this date, CBA consistently refused to perform any further work until the outstanding balance was paid, even when informed on 25 April that the new countertop had been installed and Octave had again asked when CBA would return.

Later in April, faced with the lack of functioning kitchen facilities, Octave hired an independent plumber (Plombier expert) to redo cut pipes and reinstall the sink and faucet so the kitchen could be used. CBA argued that this step prevented it from finishing the work. The court disagreed, finding that by then CBA had already abandoned the project: it had voluntarily stopped work on 9 April, had never attempted to resume, and had made no concrete plans to correct deficiencies or complete its obligations despite multiple invitations from the owners.

CBA also pointed to a July 2019 letter from its counsel referring to a possible expert report to be obtained by the homeowners and suggesting that CBA would then consider a counter-expertise to “protect its rights.” The court held that merely “waiting” for a report in order to protect legal rights did not amount to any genuine attempt to resume or complete the contract works. Taken together, CBA’s conduct—voluntary suspension of work, insistence on full payment not contractually or factually justified, and lack of remedial action—led the court to conclude that CBA had abandoned the works. Under the Civil Code, such abandonment placed CBA in default to finish and correct the work and engaged its contractual liability.

In quantitative terms, the court found that although CBA had billed 9,929.19 $ for the state of advancement of the works (excluding the separate 500 $ estimate fee), Octave was justified in paying no more than 4,993 $ for those works, considering the disallowed container and plumbing charges and the value impact of the deficiencies. In fact, CBA had already received 6,000 $ in advances for the contract work portion, leaving a “too-much-paid” (trop-perçu) of 1,007 $ that had to be reimbursed to Octave. The court treated this as a distinct component of the damages arising from CBA’s breach.

Construction legal hypothec and payment under protest

Despite the fact that the advances exceeded the amount CBA was legitimately entitled to at that stage, CBA chose to secure its claimed balance by registering a construction legal hypothec (hypothèque légale de la construction) against the homeowners’ immovable. It justified this move on the basis that it no longer had access to the site and could not be sure whether work had been completed, asserting it had to “act to preserve its right” to the hypothec. However, Québec law provides that a construction legal hypothec exists to guarantee a claim arising from materials provided or services rendered for work on the immovable. At the time CBA registered its hypothec, it had no valid net claim because the amount it had lawfully earned was less than the advances already paid. The court therefore held that CBA had no right to publish the hypothec and that its registration was wrongful.

After CBA refused to cancel the hypothec unless the owners paid 5,120.35 $, Texidor and Octave, who were co-owners of the property, opted to pay the demanded amount “under protest” (sous protêt) in early July in order to obtain its discharge and clear title to their home. This payment included the 3,929.19 $ invoice balance, 157.60 $ of interest, a contractual penalty equal to 20% of the unpaid balance (785.84 $), and 247.72 $ in hypothec-related costs. Given the earlier findings that CBA was not entitled to the balance of the invoice and had no right to register the hypothec, the court concluded that none of these components—principal balance, interest, penalty, or hypothec costs—were justified and ordered that the full 5,120.35 $ paid under protest be reimbursed to Texidor and Octave.

Personal liability of the administrator

The homeowners also sued Sébastien Boutin-Lefebvre personally, seeking to hold him liable alongside the corporation. When asked by the court to explain the basis for his personal liability, they essentially cited their fear that CBA might be insolvent. The court reiterated that mere status as a shareholder and director does not create personal liability for corporate obligations absent proof of a personal fault or an abuse justifying piercing the corporate veil. The contract was between Octave and CBA, and the hypothec had been registered by CBA in its own name. The plaintiffs did not show that Boutin-Lefebvre, in his personal capacity, had committed any independent fault giving rise to liability. As a result, the claim against him was dismissed, without costs as between him and the plaintiffs.

Damages for financial loss, stress and loss of use

Texidor and Octave claimed 15,000 $ in total, broken down across several heads of loss. For reimbursement and construction-related damages, the court allowed: (i) 5,120.35 $ jointly to Texidor and Octave for the sum paid under protest to remove the hypothec; (ii) 1,007 $ to Octave for the excess of advances over the value of work legitimately due; and (iii) 589.25 $ to Octave for the third-party plumber who reinstalled the sink and rectified the cut plumbing after CBA’s abandonment. The court found that the cost of having a third party install the backsplash did not generate additional loss, because what Octave paid to the new contractor (785.24 $) was actually less than the amount originally allocated to that labour in the CBA contract, meaning there was no incremental damage under that head.

For moral damages and loss of enjoyment, the court accepted that the wrongful registration of the hypothec caused considerable stress to both owners, including fear of enforcement proceedings and the anxiety of living with a charge on their home for over 100 days. It awarded 400 $ jointly to Texidor and Octave for this non-pecuniary harm. The court also recognised that the abandonment of the works prolonged the renovation, leaving the kitchen in an unusable “worksite” state and disrupting daily life. In light of the contractual relationship, it awarded 150 $ to Octave alone for these additional inconveniences, as he was the contracting party with CBA, while Texidor, not being a party to the contract, did not receive compensation on this particular head.

The court ordered legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code on the damages awards from 25 June 2022, which it deemed a reasonable date by which CBA was in default following the filing of the claim. The exact total of interest and additional indemnity could not be quantified in the judgment and thus cannot be stated precisely here.

In terms of costs, the general rule that costs follow the event applied. CBA was ordered to reimburse 217 $ for court filing fees and 1,500 $ for the useful portion of expert expenses incurred for the report and testimony of engineer Laurent Znaty, for a total of 1,717 $ in recoverable costs.

Outcome and total amounts awarded

In the result, the Court of Québec partially upheld the homeowners’ claim against Les Habitations CBA inc. and dismissed their claim against Sébastien Boutin-Lefebvre personally. CBA was ordered to pay 5,520.35 $ to Texidor and Octave jointly (principally reflecting the amount they had paid under protest, plus non-pecuniary damages for stress), 1,746.25 $ to Octave individually (reflecting the excess advances, the plumber’s invoice, and loss-of-use damages), and 1,717 $ in costs (expert fees and court filing charges) to the two homeowners. In total, the successful parties—Camille Texidor and Lesly Octave—obtained a principal monetary award of 8,983.60 $, together with legal interest and the additional indemnity on the two damages components from 25 June 2022, although the precise total of interest and additional indemnity cannot be determined from the judgment.