The words of an expert responding to Michel, owner of a house in Quebec. He had major and expensive work done by a contractor. Nevertheless, he is unhappy with it. He wonders what recourse he can claim.
What recourse does a client have against a contractor who has not carried out the work properly?
If a person judges that the terms of the contract binding him/her with his/her contractor have not been respected, (s)he has the right to pursue remedies from their contractor. This is done via a so-called “technico-legal” study. It is your lawyer who will judge the relevance or not of the approach. This study should be carried out by a building expert (technologist, architect or engineer) who will then have to produce a totally impartial expert report intended to enlighten the Court on the technical aspects of your dispute. However, embarking on this process is no small matter. This kind of study can be expensive and long (costs of visits, report writing, second opinion, lawyer, etc.). It can be all the more stressful if, in the end, the court judgment does not prove you are right. So this is an important decision that should not be taken lightly.
What do you recommend?
First of all, your judgment must be well founded, that is to say as objective as possible. Sometimes I have seen customers who are unhappy for no reason. Sometimes this was a defect that had nothing to do with the work of the contractor in question and existed long before the work began. So caution is required. If, on the other hand, in good faith, you believe that the damage or poor workmanship observed comes from the work of the contractor, I strongly advise you to carefully check the contract signed with him. Make sure there is a work warranty to claim it. If not, take pictures (and videos) of the places that you believe are damaged and send them by mail with acknowledgment of receipt to the contractor to find an arrangement. The aim here is to reach an amicable settlement as much as possible for obvious financial reasons.
What if the contractor rejects any friendly settlement?
In that case, the technical legal study has to be carried out the help of a building expert. Once you have appointed him/her, s/he will come to inspect the damage and/or poor workmanship but also to consult any other documentation useful for understanding the file: contracts, plans and specifications, etc. S/he can also estimate the cost of repairs for each of the defects found that are attributable to the contractor.
What precautions do you recommend?
In the event that the damage / poor workmanship relates to the structure, the first precaution is to call in an experienced and certified building engineer. You can also check his/her affiliation with the Order of Engineers of Quebec online. Also talk about your issue to those around you who may have references to give you. Then, once you find a professional, feel free to ask him/her questions about the mode of operation s/he uses, the type of report s/he produces, etc. It is your right to know more before you instruct her/him. After the engineer-expert’s first visit, ask her/him all the questions you have in mind. There are no “silly questions” especially when it engages you in a legal battle which can be costly and time consuming! Finally, keep in mind that the engineer you appoint is not an engineer who is supposed to “defend” you. At ProspecPlus, we give our general point of view orally on the first visit so that you know whether or not it is worthwhile to continue to build your case. If you feel then that you want to continue with your action, the engineer will write a report which should be transparent and completely objective. Without bias and I insist on this point. A professional engineer will always argue his observations with supporting evidence (photos, extracts from the Building Codes in force, signed contracts, etc.). If you don’t have this kind of report, your case may not be very strong in front of a judge.
In your opinion, is the consumer generally successful?
In more than 20 years of career in the field, I can tell you that there are sometimes wrongs on both sides. It is true that there are unfortunately some contractors who do not do their job according to the rules of the art and it is imperative to prosecute them because they can endanger the safety of the people who live or work in the building. But we also see the opposite case where contractors take recourse against their client. I recently had the case of a contractor who had a second opinion done because his client refused to pay him believing that the work (amounting to more than CAD 300,000) had not been done correctly. The owner of the building had appointed an “expert” who had billed him for four visits and whose report of findings contained only five paragraphs! Our second opinion and analysis of the contracts enabled us to argue that the client’s dissatisfaction was only partially justified since the latter had refused certain advices from the contractor in order to save money and carry out certain work himself. This “expert” had thus played on the credulity of his client by supporting his negative feeling without any objective argument. This litigation ultimately resulted in an out-of-court settlement agreement which is good news as it proves that the owner did not have a strong defense against the second opinion report. This example shows how important it is to choose a service provider who will carry out the study objectively without any bias and in the most detailed way possible.
To learn more about the APCHQ recommendations, please consult the APCHQ Performance Guide listing some 280 rules of good practice for residential construction professionals in Quebec.
Interview with Claude Guertin, engineer and founder of ProspecPlus Génie-Conseil