Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centered on the scope of the agreement between a contractor and a client regarding the placement of aluminum columns during a balcony renovation.
   
• Contemporaneous documents, including a hand-drawn sketch and a written estimate, carried more weight than testimony given more than two years after the events.
   
• Article 2107 of the Civil Code of Québec required the contractor to justify any price increase over the original estimate.
   
• Evidentiary weight turned on whether the additional work resulted from a client-requested modification or a contractor error.
   
• Correspondence sent by the client during construction expressed dissatisfaction with appearance rather than an objection to a breach of a specific spacing requirement.
   
• Testimony that the wider spacing was needed for future handrails was undermined by the fact that no handrails had been installed more than two years later.
   

Facts of the case

9323-5315 Québec inc. (the "Contractor") sued Investissements MCDM inc. (the "Client") in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec for payment of additional work performed during the renovation of a balcony and the installation of aluminum columns on a rental building in Granby. The Client's representative, Michel Auclair, contacted the Contractor's representative, Fabien Tétreault, after a referral from Auclair's brother. On February 29, 2024, Auclair sent Tétreault a hand-drawn sketch showing a central opening of six feet flanked by two-foot sections. On March 11, 2024, Tétreault prepared an estimate of $9,384.41 before taxes, which called for four white aluminum columns measuring 5.25 by 5.25 inches, with the two interior columns placed "24 inches toward the center" and roughly 72 inches of clearance left for building access. A 40% deposit of $3,800.00 was paid to secure the contract.

Work began in mid-June 2024. After receiving photographs from his sister, who lived on the ground floor, Auclair wrote to Tétreault on June 18, 2024, saying the two interior columns looked very close together despite the six-foot central space. Following a phone call, Auclair asked that the column placement be changed. Tétreault told him the requested change would require additional work, since part of the completed installation would have to be dismantled and rebuilt. The columns were repositioned, narrowing the central opening from roughly six feet to about 53 inches. On June 23, 2024, after receiving photos of the finished project, Auclair replied "Very good." The Contractor then billed for the work performed and the additional costs attributed to the requested modification, covering extra labour and materials. On July 6, 2024, Auclair called the result a "nice job" and sent a new sketch describing his understanding of where the columns should have gone. On July 8, 2024, he paid $7,122.63, which he described as the remaining contract balance, while maintaining that the original estimate had specified the column spacing. The Client refused to pay the additional charges, and on August 1, 2024, Auclair wrote that he should not have to pay for time spent correcting what he considered the Contractor's own error. After unsuccessful collection efforts and formal demand letters, the Contractor claimed $2,086.86, covering the additional work and the cost of sending the demand letters.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The contract was characterized as a contract of enterprise under articles 2098 and following of the Civil Code of Québec. Under article 2100, a contractor is generally bound by an obligation of result and must act with prudence and diligence, including advising the client of foreseeable consequences of their choices and of any situation likely to affect the execution or cost of the work. Article 2107 provides that when the price of work has been estimated, as in this case, the contractor must justify any increase over that estimate, and the client is only required to pay the increase to the extent it results from work, services, or expenses that were not reasonably foreseeable when the contract was formed. The court also applied the burden-of-proof standard under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code, requiring proof on a balance of probabilities, and article 2811 regarding the distinction between an allegation and evidence.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found the Contractor's version more probable, giving particular weight to documents created at the time of the events over testimony given more than two years later. The February 29, 2024 sketch and the March 11, 2024 estimate — both referring to a roughly 72-inch central opening — supported Tétreault's account that discussions had focused on preserving access to the building. Nothing in documents predating the dispute suggested the parties had agreed to a 24-inch clearance between columns to accommodate future handrails, an explanation the court found difficult to accept given that Auclair acknowledged having no particular construction expertise, had not personally verified the project's dimensions beforehand, and had still not installed the handrails more than two years after the work was completed. The court also noted the project already contemplated work on the concrete slab at the base of the balcony, undermining the claim that handrail installation necessarily required moving the columns. Auclair's June 18, 2024 email, describing the columns as looking "very close together" without asserting a breach of a specific 24-inch requirement, was read by the court as expressing dissatisfaction with the visual result rather than a contractual objection. The court concluded that Tétreault had informed Auclair, as soon as repositioning was requested, that this would generate additional costs, and that the information provided by Auclair during project planning was the source of the situation requiring the subsequent modifications.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court found in favour of the Contractor, 9323-5315 Québec inc., ruling that the additional charges stemmed from work made necessary by a client-requested modification rather than any error by the Contractor, and that the Contractor was entitled to payment under the rules governing contracts of enterprise and article 2107 C.c.Q. The Client, Investissements MCDM inc., was ordered to pay the Contractor $1,931.00, with interest at the contractual rate of 24% per year from July 23, 2024, and was further ordered to pay legal costs of $337.86, covering process-server fees of $155.86 and court filing fees of $182.00.