Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Hidden defects were established with respect to the defective French drain installation and the resulting excessive humidity and mould in the basement, but the amounts already paid by the defendants and by Desjardins Assurances were found to cover the full price reduction owed.
• Fraud (dol) was alleged but not proven; no evidence of intent to deceive was found regarding any of the representations made before or during the sale.
• Several alleged defects — including electrical non-conformities, terrain grading, the septic pipe, the gutter, and the balcony door — were rejected as either apparent defects, inadequately evidenced, or not established as pre-existing the sale.
• Assimilation of the defendants to professional sellers under article 1729 C.c.Q. was rejected, as they had built only one home for personal use, lived in it for nearly 25 years, and were not engaged in construction as a commercial activity.
• The delivery warranty under article 1716 C.c.Q. was found inapplicable because the defendants' declarations were not shown to be false at the time they were made.
• Procedural abuse under article 51 C.p.c. was established against the plaintiff, given the grossly disproportionate claim amounts, repeated amendments, numerous unproven allegations, and the plaintiff's own acknowledgment of having included everything and leaving the court to sort through it.

Facts of the case

On May 19, 2019, Isabelle Godon (the plaintiff) purchased a residential property located on Chemin du Lac-Hélène in Rouyn-Noranda from defendants Line Chartier and Normand Pépin for $395,000. The defendants had built the residence in 1993–1994 with the help of specialized contractors and Mr. Pépin's brother, Robert Pépin, who oversaw the construction site on a day-to-day basis. The defendants had lived in the home for nearly 25 years before listing it in 2018 at $419,000.

Prior to the sale, the parties exchanged a vendor's declaration (Déclaration) signed in April 2018, in which the defendants stated, among other things, that there had been no water infiltration, no signs of mould or rot, no significant humidity, and no electrical problems. A pre-purchase inspection was conducted on November 22, 2018, by certified inspector Steeve Morin, which identified several items requiring attention — including the need to replace the asphalt shingle roofing, efflorescence in the wood-storage room in the basement, issues with the sump pump float, and electrical non-conformities. The inspector's report noted the building's general condition as needing improvement. The plaintiff was aware of these issues and, after negotiating the price down to $395,000 in part to account for the roof replacement, proceeded with the purchase. The act of sale was signed on May 1, 2019.

In the months and years that followed, the plaintiff experienced a series of problems with both the inclusions and the property. The most significant issue emerged on August 8, 2020, when mould was discovered in the basement. Humidity readings taken at the time reached as high as 99.9% in some areas. The plaintiff retained Drain Abitibi, whose owner Francis Trudel — an expert in French drain installation — inspected the drain and found it non-functional due to a partially obstructed membrane, an inverted slope impeding proper drainage, and multiple irregularities preventing water from reaching the collection basin. The plaintiff subsequently had the French drain replaced and undertook extensive basement renovations. In September 2021, a water sample revealed elevated manganese levels inconsistent with Health Canada's recommended standards. On October 5, 2022, the plaintiff filed the present action.

In the course of the litigation, the plaintiff amended her claim six times. The initial demand was for $758,000 — nearly double the purchase price — before being reduced progressively to $232,370.79 by the conclusion of the five-day evidentiary hearing held in March 2026. On November 28, 2024, while the proceedings were ongoing, the plaintiff sold the property without legal warranty for $474,900.

Contractual clauses and statutory provisions at issue

The court examined several provisions of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.), including articles 1401 and 1407 (fraud/dol), article 1726 (hidden defects), article 1729 (professional seller), article 1716 (delivery warranty), and article 1739 (obligation to give notice of defects). The vendor's declaration signed in April 2018 was central to multiple claims, particularly the defendants' representations regarding the absence of water infiltration, mould, humidity, and electrical problems. The act of sale dated May 1, 2019, stipulated that the inclusions were sold without warranty. Procedural abuse was assessed under article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.).

Court's reasoning and analysis

On the fraud claim, the court found a complete absence of evidence of any intent to deceive. The defendants had openly disclosed that the roof needed replacing, that the sump pump operated regularly, and that the home was heated primarily by wood. Several of the plaintiff's allegations were found to be exaggerated or unproven, including the suggestion that Mme Chartier's habit of tidying before visits indicated something was being concealed.

On the hidden defects claim, the court accepted Mr. Trudel's expert testimony establishing that the French drain had been improperly installed — featuring an inverted slope, multiple irregularities causing water stagnation, and a drain positioned above the foundation footing in violation of the 1990 National Building Code. This constituted a hidden defect pre-existing the sale. The court also accepted that the excessive humidity and resulting mould were caused by this defective drain, compounded by the plaintiff's decision to stop using wood-burning heat, which had previously kept moisture levels in check. The elevated manganese level in the water was found to more likely than not have pre-existed the sale, based on geologist Andréanne Hamel's testimony that the region's clay-heavy soil composition would have significantly delayed any change in water composition attributable to excavation works.

Several other alleged defects were rejected. The septic pipe claim failed for lack of proof of a pre-existing vice and absence of any notice to the defendants. The terrain grading issue was found to have been caused by the plaintiff's own contractors' removal of a drainage ditch during excavation works, with no evidence of a problematic condition at the time of purchase. The electrical deficiencies were found to be apparent — the pre-purchase inspection report identified non-conformities, and the plaintiff acknowledged during testimony that she had understood the electrical work to be "artisanal" throughout the home, which the court found was a sufficiently serious indicator requiring further investigation. The gutter and small roof issues were attributed to age and known deterioration, with the plaintiff having negotiated the price down precisely because the roofing needed to be replaced. No causal link between alleged balcony design and the door problem was established, as the plaintiff's own evidence placed the door issue at the time of excavation in autumn 2020, while the expert's explanation referenced a different event in May 2021.

On the professional seller question, the court declined to treat the defendants as professional sellers. They had built only one home — their own — engaged specialized contractors for technical work including excavation and the French drain, and had no history of commercial construction activity. Mr. Pépin's recognized expertise was limited to cabinetry, and his brother Robert was the actual construction site supervisor. The court distinguished this situation from jurisprudence where self-builders had been treated as professional sellers.

On the delivery warranty, the court found no false declaration capable of triggering article 1716 C.c.Q., as the defendants had no knowledge of any of the defects at the time the Déclaration was signed.

On the price reduction, the court calculated the total cost of repairs attributable to the confirmed hidden defects — after applying depreciation — at $38,087.51, comprising $6,026.95 for the French drain (following a 77% depreciation applied on the basis of an estimated useful life of 35 years, with the drain being approximately 27 years old at the time of the works) and $32,060.56 for basement decontamination and repair works, plus $3,334.28 for the water filtration system. The approximately $50,000 received from Desjardins Assurances, combined with the $27,393.84 already paid by the defendants, exceeded the first two amounts. Accordingly, no additional price reduction was owed beyond the $3,334.28 cost of the water filtration system, which had not been covered by prior payments.

On the abuse of process claim, the court found the plaintiff's conduct clearly abusive under article 51 C.p.c. The factors cited included: an initial claim of $758,000 bearing no reasonable relationship to actual damages; six rounds of amendments; a salary loss claim of $83,742.39 with no supporting medical documentation; a large volume of unproven or abandoned allegations, including claims regarding inclusions that were never pursued at trial; unproven fraud allegations that were not even argued at the hearing; and the plaintiff's own statement at trial that she had "put everything in" and expected the court to clean it up.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court partially allowed the plaintiff's amended claim, ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff $3,334.28 — the cost of installing the water filtration system — with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from October 20, 2021. The court simultaneously allowed the defendants' counterclaim and declared the plaintiff's proceedings abusive. The defendants, Line Chartier and Normand Pépin, were the successful parties on the principal issues. The court ordered the plaintiff, Isabelle Godon, to pay the defendants $74,289.75 in reimbursement of legal fees, disbursements, and expert costs, with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from March 19, 2026. All costs of justice, including expert fees, were awarded in favour of the defendants.