Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A plumbing contractor's claim for payment and damages, ultimately increased to $15,000, was rejected in its entirety by the Court.
   
• Evidence established that the contractor's own work caused gas line and masonry damage exceeding the value of the services performed.
   
• Credibility issues significantly undermined the contractor's case, including the alteration of a Canada Post delivery receipt and an attempt to introduce an undisclosed document during trial.
   
• Consent to sign the invoice was found to be vitiated by fear, since the client felt threatened when the contractor instructed a worker to retrieve a wrench.
   
• The client's cross-demand for damages was partially granted, relying on an independent masonry expert's findings.
   
• Judicial costs were awarded to the successful party pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.
   

Facts of the case

Justin Schwartz contacted Monsieur Fournaise de la cie Plomberie Duchesne inc. (operating, among other names, as "Dr Drain"), to replace a gas outlet connector so he could install a larger barbecue. Guy Duchesne, the company's owner, attended Schwartz's property on July 18, 2024, to perform the work. Upon attempting the installation, Duchesne identified what he considered a pre-existing dangerous condition, namely a loosened gas pipe inside the wall; Schwartz maintained instead that Duchesne's own forceful attempt to unscrew the existing connector displaced the pipe. Duchesne insisted on opening the brick wall to access the pipe, and despite Schwartz's request that a mason be called, Duchesne used a drill to remove a brick himself. After repairing the pipe and discovering the new connector was defective, Duchesne purchased and installed a replacement before reinstalling the brick, again over Schwartz's objection that a mason should handle the reinstallation. Once the work was finished, Duchesne demanded immediate cash payment; when Schwartz could not pay on the spot and declined to sign the invoice, Duchesne instructed his worker to retrieve a wrench, stating this was meant to undo the completed work. Fearing for his safety while holding his 18-month-old daughter, Schwartz signed the invoice so Duchesne and the worker would leave. Schwartz later moved into the property on September 4, 2024, and had the work inspected by masonry expert Angelo Gjinika on October 18, 2024. The expert's report described negligent brick removal and reinsertion, damage to the exterior gas connection from excessive force, a strong smell of gas at the work site, chipped brick corners, and a missing protective housing device for the exterior gas outlet; the report estimated masonry repair costs at $1,657.08. Duchesne also altered a registered mail receipt related to a demand letter, crossing out Schwartz's name and writing an unrelated third party's name on it, a fact he initially denied before admitting it was his handwriting.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The Court applied several provisions of the Civil Code of Québec. Article 2100 C.c.Q. requires a contractor to act in the best interests of the client, with prudence and diligence, in accordance with the rules of the trade, and, where bound to a result, to establish force majeure to escape liability. Article 2110 C.c.Q. obliges the client to accept completed work suitable for its intended use, while article 2111 C.c.Q. permits the client to withhold payment until deficiencies are corrected. Article 1402 C.c.Q. provides that consent is vitiated where fear of serious harm to a person or property is provoked by violence or threats from the other party. Article 1590 C.c.Q. addresses a creditor's remedies for enforcement of an obligation, and article 1619 C.c.Q. concerns the additional indemnity applicable to damage awards. On costs, article 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure entitles the successful party to judicial costs, and article 34 allows the Court discretion over registered mail expense claims.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court found that Fournaise was not entitled to payment for the invoiced work. It accepted Schwartz's account that Duchesne used excessive force while attempting to unscrew the existing connector, destabilizing the gas line inside the wall, a conclusion supported by the gas odour reported immediately after the work and the absence of any such odour beforehand. The Court noted that Duchesne, a plumber rather than a mason, lacked the competence to remove and reinstall the brick, and that the resulting masonry damage exceeded the value of the work performed; Fournaise had not even invoiced for the masonry work, having recommended it be independently verified. On the claim for an additional $14,194.81, the Court found no damages beyond the frustration of an unpaid invoice: legal fees incurred in April 2025 were not linked to the proceeding, and Schwartz's grounds of defence were not frivolous. Regarding Schwartz's cross-demand, the Court accepted the expert's brick repair estimate of $1,732.10, an $18.93 gas cost from a resulting leak, and found that Duchesne's conduct in directing a worker to retrieve a wrench constituted intimidation warranting a $500 indemnity, particularly given that Schwartz signed the invoice under fear for his physical safety and his property, vitiating his consent under article 1402 C.c.Q. The Court also observed Duchesne's conduct during the hearing, including interruptions, leaving the courtroom during testimony, and initial evasiveness about the wrench and the altered mail receipt, all of which affected his credibility. The Court further declined to permit Duchesne's attempt to introduce an undisclosed invoice at trial intended to shift the date of the work from Thursday, July 18 to Friday, July 19, 2024, finding this contradicted the consistent record and was an improper attempt to take Schwartz by surprise.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court rejected Monsieur Fournaise de la cie Plomberie Duchesne inc.'s claim in full and partially allowed Justin Schwartz's cross-demand. Monsieur Fournaise de la cie Plomberie Duchesne inc. was ordered to pay Justin Schwartz $2,251, with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. running from December 23, 2025, plus judicial costs of $915.51, covering the filing of the contestation, the cross-demand, and the expert report.