Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Mostafa Shikarpour Khirabad claimed $11,253.08 from two defendant companies for allegedly defective roofing work that caused water infiltration in his kitchen.
• Central to the dispute was whether a legal relationship existed between the plaintiff and Design Construction ESP Inc., given that the work was carried out during a transitional period between related companies.
• Both defendants argued that pre-existing defects in the wall and door — unrelated to their roofing scope — were the actual source of the water infiltration.
• Under Quebec civil law, the contractor bore an obligation of result and was required to perform work in accordance with professional standards, supplemented by a conventional warranty of 15 years on materials and 5 years on labour.
• The plaintiff's key evidence — a short message from the replacement contractor — was deemed insufficient to establish defective workmanship, given the defendants' uncontradicted explanations about pre-existing structural defects.
• Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and was ordered to pay the defendants' judicial costs of $374.

Facts of the case

Mostafa Shikarpour Khirabad purchased a residential property in 2021, at which time a building inspector recommended that the flat roof above the home's extension — covering the garage and kitchen, and serving as the floor of an upper balcony — be replaced as a preventive measure. Acting on that advice, Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad contracted with the defendants to perform the roofing work at a cost of $8,853.08, as reflected in a invoice dated June 30, 2022. He reported no signs of water infiltration prior to the work. Shortly after the roofing was completed in June 2022, he observed water infiltration in his kitchen originating from the newly installed roof above. He contacted Théophane Papadopoulos, who attended the property on several occasions in an attempt to address the issue. When Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad remained dissatisfied, he sent a formal demand letter dated February 10, 2023, which the defendants refused to accept. He subsequently hired a different contractor, 9498-4002 Québec inc. (9498), to replace the roof on May 30, 2024, at a cost of $14,233.91, and ultimately brought a claim for $11,253.08 against both defendants.

Contractual and legal framework

The contract between the parties was characterized as both a consumer contract and a contract of enterprise within the meaning of Article 2098 of the Civil Code of Québec. As a contractor, the defendants were obligated under Articles 2099 and 2100 C.c.Q. to perform the work in accordance with professional standards and to ensure it conformed to the contract, while retaining freedom in choosing the means of execution. They also bore an obligation of information toward their client under Article 2102 C.c.Q. Given the nature of roofing work, an obligation of result applied, meaning that failure to deliver a leak-free roof conforming to professional standards could engage the defendants' liability. Additionally, Article 2120 C.c.Q. requires a contractor to warrant the work against defects for one year following its acceptance. Beyond these statutory protections, the June 30, 2022 invoice expressly provided a conventional warranty of 15 years on materials and 5 years on labour, further extending the defendants' obligations to Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad.

Legal relationship between the parties

The defendants disputed the existence of any legal relationship between the plaintiff and Design Construction ESP Inc., asserting that the work had been performed exclusively by ESP Division Toiture Inc. — now operating as Théophane Construction Inc. — and that Design Construction ESP Inc. was a separate entity belonging to Paul Papadopoulos, the father. The court examined the invoice issued to Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad and found that it bore multiple company identifiers: the header displayed "ESP," the body contained an email address linked to ESP Toiture, and the footer listed Design Construction ESP Inc. with its address. The court also noted that when Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad raised his complaints, Théophane Papadopoulos attended the property accompanied by Paul Papadopoulos. Taken together, these circumstances supported the conclusion that a collaboration between the two companies existed in relation to this contract, contrary to what both Papadopoulos men suggested at the hearing. The court therefore found that Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad was justified in believing that he had contracted with both defendants, and that a legal relationship existed with each of them.

Reasoning and analysis

On the merits, the parties presented sharply different accounts. Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad maintained that the water infiltration began immediately after the defendants completed their work and was caused by defective installation of the elastomeric membrane. In support, he produced a brief message from 9498, dated June 3, 2024, stating that the membrane against the house wall had not been properly installed and that the previous roofer had failed to remove the old flashing and aluminum siding, instead applying the membrane over existing materials and sealing it with caulking. Théophane Papadopoulos, for his part, described performing the roofing in accordance with professional standards, including removing the existing terrace, two layers of asphalt, and gravel before installing the membrane. He testified that when he reached the wall-floor junction near the balcony door, he discovered two overlapping layers of aluminum exterior cladding — which he described as a non-conformity — and advised Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad to retain a cladding professional to remediate the wall before completing that portion of the work. He further noted that the door and its threshold required replacement. He stated that follow-up water tests confirmed the infiltration was coming from the door, not from his roofing work, and that he eventually stopped responding to the plaintiff's calls when it became clear that Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad was unwilling to address the wall and door, and instead sought additional work outside the defendants' scope and expertise, at no charge. The court found the short message from 9498 to be insufficient to establish the defendants' liability, noting that the nature and full extent of 9498's intervention was unknown, that 9498 had been incorporated only a few months before performing the work, and that the replacement roof cost nearly double what the defendants had charged — suggesting that additional work, including on the wall, may have been carried out. The court also noted that Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad admitted replacing the door shortly after 9498's work, stating it was for aesthetic reasons only, though the court expressed doubt that aesthetics were the sole motivation given the surrounding evidence.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad's claim in its entirety, finding that he had not discharged his burden of proof. The tribunal concluded that the water infiltration could be explained by pre-existing deficiencies in the wall and door that were unrelated to the defendants' roofing contract and outside their area of competence — conditions the plaintiff had chosen not to remediate despite being informed of them. The defendants were found to have performed their work as best they could within those pre-existing constraints, and the court declined to characterize the outcome as a defect for which they were responsible. The successful parties, Design Construction ESP Inc. and Théophane Construction Inc., were awarded $374 in judicial costs, representing the joint contestation filing fee, payable by Mr. Shikarpour Khirabad.