Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Homeowners sought $8,738.46 for damage they attributed to excavation-related tree pruning.
   
• Excavations St-Pierre et Tremblay inc. impleaded the pruner, Michael Moffatt, denying any responsibility.
   
• Ownership of the damaged red oak was never established, since no certificate of location or similar proof was filed.
   
• Establishing civil liability under article 1457 C.C.Q. required proof of fault, damage, and a direct causal link.
   
• Quantifying the tree's decline proved difficult, as the plaintiffs' own forestry expert never observed the pruning or the excavation firsthand.
   
• Undermining the plaintiffs' theory, a document from their own tree-removal contractor attributed the oak's condition to Hydro-Québec's repeated topping, not to the defendant's work.
   

Facts of the case

Madone Benoit and Jean-Yves Sylvestre, owners of a property in Iberville since 1995, claimed $8,738.46 from Excavations St-Pierre et Tremblay inc. for damage they alleged the company caused to a mature red oak standing near the sidewalk in front of their home. In the summer of 2023, the City of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu contracted Excavations to replace the sewer system on their street, work that required heavy machinery, including a 50-tonne excavator. To clear a path for the equipment, Excavations arranged for pruning through Michael Moffatt, who cut branches around August 29 and 30, 2023, under direction relayed from the City's forestry engineer through Excavations's representative, Jonathan Loyer. In 2024, the plaintiffs had the oak felled, asserting it had been fatally damaged by the pruning, and sought compensation for the felling cost along with other losses, including loss of enjoyment and a claim under the Act respecting the protection of trees. Excavations denied causing any damage and impleaded Moffatt, who maintained his work met accepted arboricultural standards.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No contract or policy governed the dispute; instead, the case turned on Québec's general civil liability framework. Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec set the evidentiary burden, requiring a claimant to prove the facts supporting a claim by a preponderance of evidence. Article 1457 C.C.Q. establishes the duty not to cause injury to others and imposes liability on those who breach that duty through fault. Liability under this framework required the plaintiffs to establish three elements: fault by Excavations, damage to the tree, and a direct causal link between the two.

Reasoning and analysis

Before addressing fault, the court examined whether the plaintiffs had proven ownership of the tree, since Excavations argued it stood within the street right-of-way. Finding no certificate of location or similar evidence filed, the court could not resolve the ownership question in the plaintiffs' favour. Proceeding on a theoretical assumption that fault existed, the court turned to causation and found the plaintiffs' evidence wanting. Their expert, forestry engineer Louis-Philippe Rodier, never witnessed the pruning or nearby excavation and did not examine the tree until roughly a year after the events; several photos in his report came from the plaintiffs themselves rather than his own observations. Rodier attributed the tree's decline primarily to root damage from excavation, yet offered no evidence about excavation depth on the property or the neighbouring lot, leading the court to conclude the record could not support a finding that the root system had been affected. Rodier further apportioned 20 to 25% responsibility to the excavation work and 30% to Hydro-Québec, whose separate pruning around overhead power lines was documented as severe, but he did not identify the source supporting his apportionment or his claim that Excavations should have anticipated Hydro-Québec's later work. Most significantly, a comment from Arboriculture Rive-Sud, the company the plaintiffs themselves hired to fell the tree, attributed the oak's rotted upper structure to repeated topping by Hydro-Québec's subcontractors, describing the outcome as unavoidable and unrelated to the defendant's conduct.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the tree, failed to establish fault by Excavations, and, even assuming fault, failed to show any causal link between Excavations's conduct and the tree's ultimate removal. Having not met their burden of proof, Madone Benoit and Jean-Yves Sylvestre saw their claim dismissed in full, with legal costs awarded against them. Excavations St-Pierre et Tremblay inc. succeeded as the prevailing party, and its warranty claim against Michael Moffatt was dismissed without costs, meaning no monetary amount was ordered, granted, or awarded to any party in this decision.