Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The central dispute concerns whether the verbal agreement between the parties constituted a contract of enterprise under Article 2098 of the Civil Code of Québec, obligating the contractor to perform fibro-cement installation work to a professional standard.
• Construction NBG Inc. argued that it sold only the presence of two workers for two days, and that its expertise was never engaged — a position the court rejected.
• Expert testimony from Gabriel Dallaire established that the work was not performed professionally or in accordance with the rules of the art, and that a complete redo was necessary.
• Absence of a written contract did not shield the contractor from liability, as the court relied on the uncontradicted testimony of the claimants regarding the scope of the agreement.
• Damages awarded covered material losses, the cost of corrective work, lost work hours, and expert fees — but moral damages and case preparation time were denied.
• The court partially granted the claim, condemning Construction NBG Inc. to pay $8,631.79 plus legal interest and costs of $237.

Facts of the case

In the summer of 2024, Éric Lepage and Josée Tremblay, owners of a residential property, sought to have fibro-cement installed on the gable ends and dormers of their home. They came across an advertisement on Facebook and contacted Gabriel Bastarache, a co-shareholder of Construction NBG Inc., a company registered as a specialist in residential building renovation and the installation of terrazzo and tile. The parties reached a verbal agreement for the work to be carried out, with the claimants supplying the materials and the contractor providing labour. According to the claimants, the agreement was for two workers over a total of 40 hours at $72 per hour, for a subtotal of $5,760 before taxes; because of the cost, the claimants chose to purchase the materials themselves and Éric Lepage performed the demolition work personally. Gabriel Bastarache confirmed that two days with two workers would be sufficient to complete all the work described. No written contract was ever produced.

Contractual and legal framework

The court analyzed the nature of the verbal agreement under the Civil Code of Québec. It found the arrangement to be a contract of enterprise within the meaning of Article 2098 C.c.Q., involving an entrepreneur, private individuals, and a work to be carried out. Under Article 2103 C.c.Q., a contractor ordinarily supplies the materials necessary for the work, but the parties here stipulated that the contractor would supply labour only. Article 2099 C.c.Q. confirms that a contractor has free choice of the means of execution and no subordination relationship with the client — a provision the court noted actually reinforces, rather than diminishes, the contractor's duties and responsibilities. Article 2102 C.c.Q. further requires a contractor, before concluding the contract, to provide the client with any useful information regarding the nature of the task and the time and materials required. The contractor's own representative, Bruno Girard, acknowledged the construction nature of the agreement in an August 27, 2024 electronic communication, in which he referenced Civil Code provisions on construction contracts.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Construction NBG Inc., through its representative Bruno Girard, contested the claim on the basis that only the physical presence of two workers had been sold, not the company's expertise, and that the claimants themselves were responsible for supervising the work. The court found this position untenable. Gabriel Bastarache — who was the claimants' actual point of contact and co-shareholder of the defendant — failed to appear in court despite being summonsed, leaving the claimants' account of the agreement uncontradicted. The court held that Bruno Girard, who was not present at the initial meeting, could not disavow an agreement made by his co-shareholder. It further held that if the contractor wished to limit its liability or disclaim its professional competence, it bore the burden of clearly specifying this — which it did not do. The court dismissed the argument that inadequate hours caused the defects, noting that a constrained budget may explain incomplete work, but not defective work. Expert Gabriel Dallaire, after an inspection of the premises, concluded that the exterior cladding on the right gable had not been executed carefully and did not provide reliable waterproofing, that aesthetics had been disregarded, and that the work had not been carried out professionally or in accordance with the rules of the art. The court noted that the work subject to complaint was already a second attempt — the defendant had previously redone the work once — yet deficiencies remained. Bruno Girard himself acknowledged at trial that part of the work had not been performed according to the rules of the art.

On quantum, the court allowed the following heads of damages: material losses of $1,034.67 (P-14.1); corrective work based on a BLASCO construction quote of $6,287.12 including taxes (P-8); expert fees of $590 (P-5.1); and nine hours of lost work time at $80 per hour totalling $720 (P-9). The court denied the claim for $2,000 in moral damages and the claim for hours spent preparing the court file, holding that case preparation time is an inherent inconvenience of litigation, not a recoverable head of damages.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, under the Honourable Judge Richard P. Daoust, J.C.Q., partially granted the claim. Construction NBG Inc. was condemned to pay Éric Lepage and Josée Tremblay a total of $8,631.79, together with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided by law, running from the formal demand of January 13, 2025, as well as costs fixed at $237. The claimants were the successful parties.