Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A contractor sought payment of an outstanding balance for plumbing repairs and water heater replacement performed on a client's income property.
   
• The property owner disputed the hourly rate charged, arguing it exceeded the rate the parties had agreed upon.
   
• Evidence showed the property owner, not the contractor, had communicated directly with the insurer regarding reimbursement for the water heater costs.
   
• Contractual obligations between the parties remained unaffected by the separate question of insurance coverage and reimbursement.
   
• No commitment existed requiring the contractor to assist the owner in pursuing recourse against a former building owner.
   
• Compensation for time and travel spent asserting one's rights in court was denied absent evidence of bad faith by the opposing party.
   

Facts of the case

Maisons Modulaires Mont-Carmel inc. performed plumbing work and replaced four hot water tanks in a building owned by Benoit Dagenais, after a sewer backup flooded the basement of his income property. On May 20, 2021, the company issued a first invoice of $1,193.16 for the plumbing work and, the same day, sent Dagenais an initial quote for replacing the four hot water tanks. At Dagenais's request, a revised quote featuring a higher-end model followed on June 17, 2021, which he approved that same day while authorizing the work to proceed. The completed installation was invoiced at $3,924.28, consistent with the accepted estimate. After paying $3,848.86, Dagenais left an outstanding balance of $1,447.26. Maisons Modulaires claimed this balance plus $500 for fees and inconvenience, totaling $1,947.26. Dagenais contested the claim and counterclaimed for $7,296.12, covering costs tied to the original sewer backup and $2,000 in damages.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Articles 1378 and 2098 of the Civil Code of Québec governed formation of the service contract, which the court found was established once Dagenais selected the water heater model in the second quote, accepted it, and requested the work. Articles 1434, 1458, and 2098 CCQ bound Dagenais to pay the agreed price once Maisons Modulaires performed its obligations. Article 1619 CCQ, together with articles 1565 and 1617, governed the additional indemnity awarded given the absence of an agreed interest rate, while section 3 of the federal Interest Act addressed the applicable legal rate.

Reasoning and analysis

The court rejected Dagenais's contention that the first invoice exceeded the agreed hourly rate of $75. Evidence confirmed that rate had in fact been applied, and that the $300 charge for two workers over two hours reflected time spent simultaneously by each; a single worker would likely have needed twice as long to finish the same job, so no overbilling occurred. Turning to the insurance dispute, the court found no evidentiary basis for Dagenais's claim that Maisons Modulaires caused his insurer to only partially reimburse the water heater costs. The company's representative denied contacting the insurer, and the record showed Dagenais himself had sent the earlier, less expensive estimate to his insurer, with all project communications occurring directly between the parties. Regardless, the court held that insurance reimbursement was a separate legal matter that could not be raised against Maisons Modulaires, since Dagenais had chosen the second quote, approved it, and requested the work. On the claim involving the former property owner, the court found no evidence that Maisons Modulaires had made any contractual commitment to assist Dagenais with a potential claim against that former owner, even though the possibility had been discussed.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court allowed Maisons Modulaires' claim in part, holding Dagenais liable for the unpaid balance of $1,447.26, with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 CCQ running from February 23, 2024, the date of default. Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hinse v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 35, the court denied Maisons Modulaires' separate claim for $500 in travel expenses and lost time, finding that such costs incurred to assert one's rights in court are not compensable absent evidence of bad faith or abuse of process, which was not established here. Dagenais's counterclaim was dismissed in full, and he was ordered to pay Maisons Modulaires $182 in court costs.