Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Deficient evidence on both sides forced the Court of Québec to exercise broad discretion in quantifying corrective-work costs.
   
• Article 2111 C.C.Q. entitled the defendant to withhold sums for apparent defects, but only to the extent he could prove them.
   
• Testimony from the contractor's own site employee contradicted its representative's account of the platform's design.
   
• Only three of six alleged construction defects were substantiated: the platform's support structure, the deficient insulation, and the improperly installed windows.
   
• Separately, Article 2107 C.C.Q. required the contractor to justify cost increases over its original estimate, and it succeeded only for the roofing upgrade.
   
• Ultimately, a 24% contractual interest claim failed for lack of proof that the parties had agreed to it.
   

Facts of the case

In 2023, Jonathan Chouinard hired 9096-9692 Québec inc., operating as Multy-Créations, to build a wooden platform and later assemble a yurt on his property near Lac Témiscouata. Work began before Chouinard had obtained a building permit. In November 2023, the municipality of Témiscouata-sur-le-Lac halted construction because its bylaws prohibited a canvas-walled primary building. To comply, Chouinard redesigned the structure into a permanent round chalet with wood-framed walls, reinforced roof trusses, plywood, and metal roofing and cladding. The municipality issued a permit in August 2024, and Multy-Créations completed part of the remaining work that fall.

By January 2025, Multy-Créations had invoiced $23,277.62 for the fall 2024 work, later crediting $6,881.95 and separately invoicing $580.62 for site dismantling. Around this time, Chouinard discovered the platform had sagged roughly three inches and alleged several other construction defects, including deficient insulation, improperly installed windows lacking lintels, missing sealing trim, unequal roof truss dimensions, and insufficient eaves. He refused to pay the outstanding invoices. Multy-Créations sued, voluntarily reducing its claim to $15,000.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on several provisions of the Civil Code of Québec governing contracts of enterprise. Article 2100 C.C.Q. requires a contractor to act with prudence and diligence and in accordance with the rules of its trade. Article 2111 C.C.Q. allows a client to withhold, from the contract price, a sum sufficient to address apparent defects existing at delivery. Article 2120 C.C.Q. imposes a one-year warranty against defects discovered after delivery. Separately, Article 2107 C.C.Q. addresses cost estimates: a contractor must justify any price increase over an estimate, and the client owes the excess only if it stems from unforeseeable work or expenses. Multy-Créations' written estimate of October 26, 2023, quoted $16,100 (plus tax) to close in the yurt with metal cladding and insulation, later confirmed by both parties in an exchange of correspondence.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found the evidentiary record from both parties lacking, noting neither side could clearly correlate invoices with payments, and Chouinard produced no expert reports or corrective-work invoices to support most of his defect claims. Despite these gaps, the judge found the platform's support structure genuinely defective: an employee of Multy-Créations testified, contradicting the company's own representative, that the manufacturer's plan called for 24 support posts, yet the plaintiff installed only nine piles. Because the contractor had taken on the redesign to a heavier permanent structure, it bore responsibility for verifying the platform's load-bearing capacity. Exercising its discretion given the weak proof of actual repair costs, the court awarded $2,500 for corrective work on the platform, $600 for insulation deficiencies visible in photographs, and $2,000 for reinstalling six windows lacking lintels. Claims involving unequal roof trusses, insufficient eaves, and unpaid metal cladding costs failed: the truss spacing matched the manufacturer's design, no professional evidence supported the eaves complaint, and a review of invoicing history showed the cladding had already been credited back to Chouinard rather than charged.

On the estimate dispute, the court accepted that Multy-Créations could justify part of its cost overrun because Chouinard later chose upgraded architectural metal roofing requiring a specialized installer. However, the court rejected the contractor's position that insulation had never been part of the estimate, since the written quote expressly included it. Finding the $16,100 estimate exceeded by at least $4,000 for unjustified reasons, the court deducted that amount from what Multy-Créations could claim. The court separately dismissed a claim for 24% annual interest, since the invoices carrying that rate were unsigned and no evidence showed the parties had agreed to it.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court partially granted the claim. After deducting $5,100 for substantiated construction defects and $4,000 for the unjustified estimate overage from the $15,000 claimed, the court ordered Chouinard to pay Multy-Créations $5,900, taxes included, with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under Article 1619 C.C.Q. running from the August 22, 2024 formal notice of default. Given the mixed outcome, no court costs were awarded to either party.