Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Giuseppe Oppedisano hired Charlie Emanuele to perform landscaping work at his residence for $15,000, but the contractor left the job site without completing all the work and with deficiencies in the retaining wall.
• Central to the dispute is whether the contractor breached his obligation of result under Quebec civil law by failing to execute the landscaping work in accordance with industry standards.
• Evidentiary gaps in the client's case — including the absence of expert testimony on the cost and necessity of corrective work — limited the damages the court was willing to award.
• Shared responsibility was a key factor, as the court attributed 30% of the retaining wall deficiencies to the client's insistence on a 90-degree installation angle against the contractor's recommendations.
• The contractor's counterclaim for $14,160 in unpaid extras and materials failed entirely due to the absence of invoices or other documentary proof supporting the amounts claimed.
• Contractual formality was at issue, as the contractor performed additional work and incurred extra costs without reducing any of the agreed changes to writing.

Facts of the case

In April 2021, Giuseppe Oppedisano engaged Charlie Emanuele, a landscaping contractor, to redo the front driveway entrance, the steps and landing leading to the main entrance, and the steps leading to the backyard of his residence, for a total agreed price of $15,000. On 26 April 2021, the client paid a first deposit of $5,000 in cash at the contractor's request. A second deposit of $5,000 in cash was paid on 30 April 2021, also at the contractor's request, to cover the cost of materials, including the blocks needed for the retaining wall and the steps. Shortly after work began, the client noticed that the block placement and threshold were uneven and brought this to the contractor's attention. Upon completion of the retaining wall, the client observed that it was not level and showed visible deficiencies. He alleged that the contractor failed to follow the manufacturer's installation guide, used plastic sheeting from "Béto Bloc" instead of a proper membrane, and omitted the manufacturer-supplied hooks required to properly support the retaining wall. The client also noted that the drain was installed higher than the garage threshold, contrary to accepted practice. When raised, the contractor became confrontational and left the job site permanently, with the asphalt installation remaining incomplete.

Contractual issues and terms in dispute

The contractor maintained that the initial $15,000 agreement covered the landscaping work, and that during excavation he discovered the existing retaining wall was anchored nine feet into the ground — far deeper than the standard three feet — making the excavation and demolition more costly than anticipated. He and the client verbally agreed to cut the wall at three feet and compact the soil with ¾-inch rock. The contractor also recommended installing the retaining wall at a negative incline for structural integrity and to meet manufacturer specifications, but the client insisted on a straight 90-degree angle. Additional work — including tree removal and the installation of rock along the path to the backyard — was also requested by the client, and the contractor testified that these extras, verbally accepted by the client, amounted to $7,000 plus applicable taxes. No written contract was drawn up for any of these additions or unforeseen costs. The contractor's counterclaim sought $14,160, representing the unpaid balance of the original contract and the additional work performed.

Reasoning and analysis

Under Quebec civil law, a contractor is bound to act in the client's best interest with prudence and diligence, and to carry out work in conformity with the rules of the trade and the terms of the contract (C.c.Q., art. 2100). Where an obligation of result applies, the contractor can only be relieved of liability by proving force majeure (C.c.Q., art. 2129). The court found that the contractor's work did not meet the required quality standards and that he failed to rebut the presumption of liability by establishing a force majeure. The client's expert confirmed that the retaining wall did not meet the manufacturer's specifications, was curved due to the absence of vertical PEHD keys, and was installed out of square. However, the court found significant evidentiary deficiencies in the client's damages claim: the expert's report identified deficiencies but did not specify the corrective work required or its cost, and no expert evidence supported the client's assertion that all the work needed to be completely redone. The $263.50 cost of renting an excavator (Yanmar) was excluded, as the client admitted it was his own discretionary choice and no one had asked him to incur that expense. On the question of shared responsibility, the court held that the client bore 30% of the fault for the retaining wall deficiencies, as the absence of a negative incline was directly attributable to his own instructions and contrary to the contractor's express recommendation.

Regarding the contractor's counterclaim, the court accepted the contractor's testimony that the client had verbally consented to the additional work, finding his account more precise and consistent. Nevertheless, the counterclaim was dismissed in full because the contractor failed to produce any invoices or documentary evidence substantiating the amounts claimed — for the extra work, for the deeper excavation, or for the paving stones (pavé uni) purchased but not installed. Under Quebec law, the burden of proving the value of work performed rests with the contractor (C.c.Q., art. 2106–2107), and that burden was not met.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court partly granted the claim of the demandeur, Giuseppe Oppedisano. After arbitrating the total deficiency costs at $4,500, applying the 30% client-responsibility reduction ($1,350), and offsetting the $1,021.86 outstanding balance owed by the client on the contractor's invoice, the court ordered the defendant, Charlie Emanuele, to pay the plaintiff the net sum of $2,128.14, plus legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec, from 2 January 2022 — the date of default following the second formal notice served on 22 December 2021. The defendant was further ordered to pay $201 in court costs. The contractor's counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety.