6781900 Canada inc. (DHM Renovations) c. Lorente						2012 QCCQ 7042
JM1606
COURT OF QUEBEC
"Small Claims Division"
CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF			MONTREAL
Civil Division
N° :	500-32-121178-109
DATE :		September 21, 2012
______________________________________________________________________
BY THE HONOURABLE					ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.
______________________________________________________________________
6781900 CANADA INC. doing business under the firm and style name of DHM RENOVATIONS
Plaintiff
v.
ALICIA LORENTE
Defendant
______________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________

[1]            GIVEN the evidence;

[2]            WHEREAS plaintiff is a licensed general contractor;

[3]            WHEREAS a verbal contract of enterprise intervened between the parties, on or about August 25, 2009, for the renovation of defendant's home;

[4]            WHEREAS the parties wilfully chose to transact without the benefit of a written contract or the issuance of invoices, with a view to avoid their fiscal responsibilities;

[5]            WHEREAS this way of operating is prohibited by law and against public order;

[6]            WHEREAS a contract, the cause of which is prohibited by law or contrary to public order, is null (s. 1411 of the Civil Code of Quebec );

[7]            WHEREAS a contract that is null, is deemed never to have existed; and, in such a case, each party is bound to restore to the other the prestations he has received (s.  1422 C.C.Q.);

[8]            WHEREAS plaintiff is claiming the balance owing on the price of the work performed;

[9]            WHEREAS defendant is alleging incomplete and shoddy work;

[10]         WHEREAS the Court shall not enforce an agreement which is contrary to law and public order;

[11]         WHEREAS , however, restitution under s. 1699 C.C.Q. is not feasible, under the circumstances;

[12]         GIVEN s. 1700 C.C.Q.;

[13]         GIVEN the absence of proper documentation and accounting; given the work carried out; given the contestation; and given the absence of experts' reports in the file;

[14]         WHEREAS , however, the pictures filed by defendant show that plaintiff did not execute the flooring work in accordance with usual practice and the rules of art (s.  2100  C.C.Q.);

[15]         GIVEN s. 1699 (2) C.C.Q.;

[16]         WHEREAS , in its discretion, the Court shall modify the scope and mode of the restitution [1] ;

[17]         WHEREAS , finally, both parties, as stated above, acted contrary to the law and to public order;

 

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY:

GRANTS plaintiff's application as amended, in part;

SENTENCES defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of $1,500.00, without interest or legal indemnity;

EACH PARTY PAYING ITS OWN COSTS .

		__________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.
Date of hearing :	September 4, 2012