Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendant contractor failed to answer the summons, so the plaintiffs proceeded by way of judgment by default on the strength of exhibits, an expert report and sworn statements.
   
• Concrete work around the plaintiffs' pool crumbled and came loose after completion, and an expert report from Bâtimex concluded the work had to be entirely redone.
   
• An email from the contractor dated July 4, 2025 acknowledged that the deficiencies required correction, yet no corrective work followed.
   
• Resolution of the contract was ordered on the basis that the seriousness of the deficiencies justified it, with restitution of the $14,767.39 paid.
   
• Damages covered the cost of removing and reinstalling a glass fence and $5,000 per plaintiff for trouble and inconvenience.
   
• Interest and the additional indemnity were not addressed because the originating application did not ask for them.
   

Facts of the case

In 2024, Jacques Aillerie and Jacqueline Aillerie Bellanger [note: the style of cause reads "Allaire," while the body of the judgment names the plaintiffs as "Aillerie"] hired 9472-5355 Québec inc., operating as Groupe GVMA, under a contract for work to fully refurbish the concrete structure surrounding the pool on their property in Chambly. The dispositive portion dates the contract to July 1, 2024. After the contractor finished the job, the concrete crumbled and came loose. The homeowners notified the contractor of the deficiencies and put it on formal notice to carry out corrective work. In an email dated July 4, 2025, the contractor told them the deficiencies needed correcting, but it never did the work.

The homeowners served their originating application on August 3, 2026. The contractor did not respond within the legal deadline and filed no contestation, and the homeowners applied for judgment by default. The court heard the matter on September 16, 2026, relying on the filed exhibits, an expert report from the firm Bâtimex and the homeowners' sworn statements.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The judgment turns on the contractor's default and the remedy of resolution under the Civil Code of Québec. The court cited article 1590 C.C.Q. in finding that the contractor was in default to correct the deficiencies, and article 1604 C.C.Q. in holding that the seriousness of the deficiencies justified resolving the contract. On the damages for trouble and inconvenience, the court referred to Lefebvre c. Climatisation Labelle 1996 inc., 2015 QCCS 1247, at paragraph 48. Article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure was cited in connection with fixing the expert fees as part of legal costs. The decision does not quote the text of the contract itself.

Reasoning and analysis

According to the Bâtimex report, the deficiencies meant the work had to be redone in full, and the court found their seriousness warranted resolution of the contract. Because the defects resulted in the loss of the work, the homeowners could not return it to the contractor. The court therefore ordered the contractor to refund the $14,767.39 the homeowners had paid.

Beyond restitution, the evidence showed that the refurbishment would require removing and reinstalling a glass fence at a cost of $4,599, which the court treated as an injury caused by the contractor. The homeowners also proved trouble and inconvenience arising from the defective work, and the court granted their claim of $5,000 each, for $10,000 in total.

One item was refused as damages: $50.34 for the cost of mailing formal notice letters. The court instead folded those mailing costs into the legal costs it awarded. Expert fees were fixed at $1,092.26 on the evidence filed. Although plaintiffs' counsel submitted a draft judgment providing for interest and the additional indemnity, the court declined to rule on either, since the originating application did not seek them and the court could not grant more than what was claimed.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted the application in part, resolved the July 1, 2024 contract for work and ordered 9472-5355 Québec inc. to pay Jacques Aillerie and Jacqueline Aillerie Bellanger $29,366.39, made up of the $14,767.39 refund, $4,599 for the glass fence and $10,000 for trouble and inconvenience. The homeowners also recovered their legal costs, including the Bâtimex expert fees of $1,092.26. No interest or additional indemnity was awarded.