Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A contractor abandoned a residential renovation project midway, prompting cross-claims for unpaid work and correction costs.
   
• Quebec's Civil Code required the party asserting a claim to prove its facts through clear and convincing evidence.
   
• Testimony from the on-site designer established that the contractor's unexplained delays and quality problems preceded its departure.
   
• Because the contractor refused outright to complete or correct the work, it was found in default by operation of law, removing the need for a formal demand letter.
   
• Several claimed expenses, including moving and appliance replacement costs, were rejected as too indirect to qualify as recoverable damages.
   
• Ultimately, the court exercised its discretion to fix a lump-sum award rather than accept the itemized amounts submitted.
   

Facts of the case

LFP Construction et Rénovation ("LFP") sued Les Immeubles KIK inc. ("KIK") for unpaid renovation work, claiming an amount stated inconsistently in the judgment as either $13,814.31 or $13,814.37 [source discrepancy]. KIK contested the claim and filed a cross-demand seeking $15,000 for incomplete and defective work and related inconvenience. LFP did not appear at the hearing, so the matter proceeded solely on KIK's cross-demand.

KIK had engaged LFP under an initial April 25, 2024 estimate for kitchen, bathroom, powder room, and basement renovations, along with painting throughout the residence, for a lump sum of $85,000 plus taxes. Work began in May 2024 and was expected to finish by late July. As the project progressed, delays and quality issues emerged. Tension grew between LFP's representative, René Blanchette Jr., and KIK's representative, Karl Fillion. On August 24, 2024 [the source elsewhere gives August 24, 26, or 28 for this date], during a meeting to review outstanding deficiencies, Blanchette became angry, refused to make requested corrections, and left the site permanently without finishing the work. KIK moved into the residence on September 5, 2024, despite the unfinished state of the renovations, and later paid third parties, including Centaure Construction and Onyx peinture, to complete corrective work between January and March 2025.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The dispute centered on the Civil Code of Québec's rules governing contracts of enterprise under article 2100 and following. Under articles 2126 and 2129 C.C.Q., a contractor terminating a contract unilaterally must have serious grounds and act at an appropriate time, or become liable for resulting harm to the client. Articles 1594 and 1602 C.C.Q. address when a party is placed in default by operation of law without requiring formal notice, while articles 1597(2) and 1608 C.C.Q. govern the circumstances in which a formal demand letter becomes unnecessary because performance has already been clearly refused.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that KIK, as the party advancing the cross-demand, bore the burden of proving its claims through clear and convincing evidence. Testimony from the project designer, Isabelle Lemire, who was on site almost daily, described a steady decline in the pace and quality of the work, including poorly applied paint and unresolved subcontractor payment issues. The court accepted that LFP's abandonment of the site, following its refusal to correct identified deficiencies, placed LFP in default by operation of law, making a formal demand letter unnecessary.

On the question of damages, the court scrutinized the invoices KIK submitted for corrective work. Testimony from Centaure Construction's representative, Jean-François De Blois, was found imprecise regarding which tasks corresponded to which invoice, and overlapping painting charges appeared between Centaure Construction and a separate contractor, Onyx peinture. The court also noted that corrective work was billed several months after LFP left the site, and that the designer's near-daily presence undercut claims that deficiencies went unnoticed during construction. Additional costs claimed by KIK, including moving expenses, a replacement washer-dryer set, electrician fees for outlets not included in the original contract, and fireplace and gas-line costs, were found not to constitute direct damages arising from LFP's breach.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed LFP's principal claim and granted KIK's cross-demand in part. Rather than awarding the itemized amounts KIK sought, the court exercised its discretion to fix the damages at $5,000, ordering LFP to pay this amount to KIK with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity from November 12, 2024. Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.