Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A Court of Quebec Small Claims judge ruled that water infiltrations traced back to inadequate roof waterproofing performed under a 2014 contract, triggering a ten-year manufacturer's warranty.
   
• Two real estate trusts sought compensation from the roofing contractor after their building's roof had to be completely redone in 2022.
   
• The contractor argued the warranty was voided by a rooftop air conditioning installation, but satellite imagery predating the 2014 work disproved that claim.
   
• Alternative defences alleging inadequate maintenance and delayed notice of defects were also rejected for lack of supporting evidence.
   
• Damages were reduced to reflect the roof's age relative to its expected lifespan and an upgrade to higher-quality materials, avoiding overcompensation.
   
• Judgment was granted in part, with the contractor ordered to pay $9,784.57 in damages plus court costs.
   

Facts of the case

Daniel Kochenburger Couvreur inc. completely redid the roof of a Montreal building in December 2014, providing the owner at the time with a ten-year warranty against roofing defects. Fiducie immobilière Michèle Labrèche and Fiducie immobilière Richard Sirois acquired the building in January 2017. A pre-purchase inspection report dated November 4, 2016 had already flagged several roof components, including unreplaced flashings, a deteriorated skylight, and a roof vent perforated to accommodate air conditioning wiring. In July 2021, a tenant reported water infiltration, and the trusts notified the contractor. The contractor's president inspected the roof and concluded the warranty was void because, in his view, the roof had been pierced after 2014 to install an air conditioning unit. The trusts had the roof completely replaced in 2022 and pursued the contractor for the cost of that work and related interior repairs.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The warranty guaranteed the roof and membrane against cracks for ten years and committed the contractor to carry out necessary repairs at its own expense where defects stemmed from faulty workmanship or ordinary wear. It automatically terminated if the roof surface was modified, if attachments were made to it, or if the building's use changed without prior written approval, and it required the owner to notify the contractor immediately in writing of any defect. The court also applied Civil Code of Québec provisions governing contracts of enterprise, including the contractor's obligation to deliver work conforming to the contract and the statutory one-year warranty against poor workmanship, alongside the case law principle that a warranty beneficiary need only prove the defect's existence, not the contractor's fault.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found the roofer's 2022 report, describing a saturated support panel and gravel improperly adhered to the felt paper, established that the original 2014 work failed to achieve proper waterproofing, and this went uncontradicted by the contractor. On the air conditioning issue, the court held the contractor bore the burden of proving the warranty's cancellation conditions were met and failed to do so: a September 2013 satellite photo, predating the contractor's own work, already showed an air conditioning unit in the same rooftop location, and the 2016 pre-purchase report contained photographs confirming its presence. The tenant who occupied the building in 2016 testified he installed no such unit. On maintenance and notice, the court found the contractor never established that the unreplaced flashings or the sealant work performed by the trusts' contractor in 2017 and 2018 caused or worsened the infiltrations, and that the trusts had given verbal notice of the infiltration problem within days of learning of it, satisfying the warranty's notification requirement.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted the trusts' claim in part, finding the contractor liable under the warranty for the roof's waterproofing failure. In calculating damages, the court reduced the claimed roof-replacement cost to account for the use of a higher-quality elastomeric membrane and further reduced it to reflect the roof's age relative to its expected lifespan, avoiding overcompensation, while applying a smaller reduction to interior repair costs. Daniel Kochenburger Couvreur inc. was ordered to pay the trusts $9,784.57 in damages, plus court costs of $346.