Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Article 2120 C.C.Q. required Duvernay to warrant its paving work against defects for one year following completion.
   
• Bergeron's evidence established that minor defects, including small cracks and water pooling near a curb, persisted through September 2021 despite two rounds of warranty repairs.
   
• Court dismissed the claim for third-party correction costs because Bergeron never sent Duvernay a formal notice announcing that another company would perform the work at Duvernay's expense, as required under article 1602 C.C.Q.
   
• Full invoice reimbursement was denied since the evidence showed only minor defects, not a loss of the work under article 2118 C.C.Q. that would render it unfit for use.
   
• Duvernay's continued willingness to return and complete warranty work weighed against Bergeron, who did not confirm or pursue a scheduled third visit in September 2021.
   
• Judgment ultimately favoured Duvernay, with Bergeron's claim dismissed in its entirety and court costs awarded against her.

Facts of the case

In June 2020, Andrée Bergeron hired Duvernay Asphalte et Transport inc. to repave the driveway and parking area at her Laval residence, paying the full invoice of $6,260.39. Shortly afterward, she noticed tire marks and potholes causing water to pool, along with settling near a curb and a crack near a staircase. Duvernay returned twice to make repairs at no charge — once in October 2020 and again in September 2021, when it applied a sealant. Bergeron remained dissatisfied, expecting the surface to match her neighbour's. After the sealant application, the parties arranged a third visit for September 17, 2021, but a miscommunication over confirmation meant Duvernay never returned, and no new date was set. Bergeron sent a formal notice on October 25, 2021, demanding full reimbursement or complete redoing of the work, but did not mention any intention to hire another contractor. She filed suit on May 13, 2022, and in July 2025 paid a third-party company $3,000.85 to perform corrective work. Her claim, initially totalling $10,160.39 but recalculated by the court at $9,961.21 [source states $9,961.21; the sum of the itemized figures given is $9,961.24], sought reimbursement of the original invoice, court costs, compensation for alleged overbilling, and the third-party repair costs.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Several provisions of the Civil Code of Québec governed the dispute. Article 2100 C.C.Q. requires a contractor to perform work in accordance with accepted trade standards. Article 2120 C.C.Q. imposes a one-year warranty against defects (malfaçons), defined as minor flaws that depart from trade norms and reduce enjoyment of the property. Article 2118 C.C.Q. separately imposes a five-year warranty against "loss" of the work — a more serious defect rendering the property unfit for use and substantially reducing its value. Article 1602 C.C.Q. permits a client to hire another contractor to fix defective work at the original contractor's expense, but only after sending a formal notice (mise en demeure) specifically warning of that intention. The burden of proof provisions, articles 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q., required Bergeron to establish her claims on a balance of probabilities.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that Bergeron proved the existence of defects affecting Duvernay's work between 2020 and 2021, a conclusion supported by Duvernay's own representative, Raynald Samson, who acknowledged the imperfections. However, the court characterized these as minor defects rather than a more serious loss under article 2118 C.C.Q., noting Bergeron continued using the driveway through trial and presented no evidence of a defect serious enough to render it unusable. Regarding the third-party correction costs, the court held that Bergeron's October 2021 formal notice failed to satisfy article 1602 C.C.Q. because it demanded only reimbursement or a full redo, without stating she would hire another company and seek reimbursement of that cost. Testimony showed Duvernay remained willing to complete repairs, but the parties lost contact after the missed September 2021 appointment, and Bergeron proceeded to court and third-party repairs without giving proper notice. The court also rejected the $500 overbilling claim, finding Bergeron's evidence on the alleged shortfall in surface area imprecise, and noted she had paid Duvernay's 2021 invoice without objection.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed Bergeron's claim in its entirety. It declined to award the $3,000.85 in third-party correction costs due to the missing formal notice, denied the $6,260.39 invoice reimbursement and $500 overbilling claim for lack of a serious defect or sufficient evidence, and refused court costs given the dismissal. Duvernay was the successful party, and the court ordered Bergeron to pay Duvernay's court costs of $271.