Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Peinture Idécoupe inc. claimed $7,745.48 for painting and plastering services allegedly rendered at a Montreal condominium unit owned by Ludovic Remacle and Géraldine Flabat.
• Disputed is whether the work was completed and performed in accordance with the rules of the trade, as required under Article 2100 of the Civil Code of Québec.
• Two expert reports — one by building inspector Patrick Lamarre and another by property manager Jean-Christophe Lorrain — documented multiple deficiencies in the work.
• Remacle and Flabat filed a counterclaim for $6,372 in damages, covering remediation costs and expert fees for corrective work performed by Les Pros de la Copro.
• Under Articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q., the burden of proof required each party to establish their claims on a balance of probabilities.
• Peinture Idécoupe inc. failed to meet its burden of proof, while the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim, though only up to the amount the court found substantiated.

Facts of the case

On or around March 8, 2022, Peinture Idécoupe inc. (Idécoupe) submitted a quote to Ludovic Remacle and Géraldine Flabat for plastering repairs and painting work at their condominium unit in Montreal, in the amount of $4,267 plus taxes. Gaétan Drapeau, president of Idécoupe, stated that the work was carried out between May 10–11, 2022, and again from May 30 to June 4, 2022. He maintained that services were rendered to 75% completion at the property and that an invoice for $5,867 was issued on June 4, 2022. On June 14, 2022, Idécoupe registered a construction legal hypothec as a conservatory measure, which was later cancelled following a motion by Remacle–Flabat on the basis that it had been filed out of time. A formal demand letter was sent on February 21, 2023, and was denied, leading to the present action for $7,745.48.

Remacle and Flabat disputed the claim, asserting that the work was only partially completed and was not performed in accordance with trade standards. They contended that Drapeau had agreed to return to finish the work and correct the deficiencies, but never did. In their letter of June 15, 2022, they documented numerous anomalies, including blistering in the plasterwork, incorrect paint colours, unpainted sections, incomplete cutting, partial sanding, visible holes, and rough repairs on multiple surfaces. They filed a counterclaim for $6,372, covering the cost of remediation work performed by Les Pros de la Copro and associated expert fees.

Contractual and statutory provisions at issue

The court applied Articles 2098 and following of the Civil Code of Québec, with particular focus on Article 2100, which provides that contractors and service providers are bound to act in the best interests of their client, with prudence and diligence, and must perform their work in accordance with the usages and rules of their trade, ensuring that the work or service conforms to the contract. Where they are bound to a result, they can only be relieved of liability by proving force majeure. The evidentiary framework was governed by Articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q., which require the party asserting a right to prove the facts supporting their claim on a balance of probabilities — that is, that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court heard testimony from two independent experts. Patrick Lamarre, a building inspector, visited the condominium unit in August 2022 and filed a report documenting numerous deficiencies: botched plaster repairs, visible sanding marks, incomplete repairs, inadequate and unaesthetic paint cutting, and walls and doors that had been left partially or entirely unpainted. Jean-Christophe Lorrain, a property manager representing Les Pros de la Copro, produced an inspection report dated July 11, 2022, similarly identifying uneven cuts, partial painting, irregular sanding, and various aesthetic problems.

The court found that Idécoupe had not met its burden of proof in demonstrating that the services were rendered in accordance with trade standards, given the weight of the two expert reports and the corroborating testimony of both Lamarre and Lorrain. Conversely, the court found that Remacle and Flabat had established their counterclaim on a balance of probabilities, though only to a limited extent.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court rejected Idécoupe's claim in its entirety and ordered it to pay court costs of $207 (the judicial stamp fee). On the counterclaim, the court condemned Peinture Idécoupe inc. to pay Ludovic Remacle and Géraldine Flabat the sum of $2,500, inclusive of inspection fees, remediation costs, and inconvenience damages, together with interest and the additional indemnity under Article 1619 C.c.Q. from the date of service, plus court costs of $207. Remacle and Flabat were the successful parties, with a total monetary award of $2,707 ($2,500 in damages plus $207 in costs) rendered in their favour.