Renovations : Foreseeability Can Be Expensive
Contracts of enterprise, which are central to many renovation and building projects, are often the source of complex disputes. A recent decision by the Quebec Superior Court1 highlights many issues surrounding these contracts, including the unpredictability of costs, the scope of the duty to inform, and the limits of non-payment of invoices as grounds for termination. This article examines the case and its implications.
Background to the Case
Ms. Ramziath Abdou Mohamed purchased a duplex building that required major renovations. She subsequently entered into a contract with 9297-8493 Québec Inc. (hereinafter “Titan”), a general contractor, to convert the property into a triplex. The contract included a preliminary budget of approximately $150,000. However, as the work progressed, Titan submitted revised budget proposals, increasing the total cost to nearly $380,000.
Faced with this substantial increase in costs, Ms. Mohamed refused to pay the additional bills, arguing that Titan had failed in its duty to inform her and that the costs were foreseeable. In response, Titan abandoned the worksite and claimed an outstanding balance.
In response to this situation, Ms. Mohamed filed a claim for damages, while Titan filed a counterclaim to recover what it believed it was owed.
Superior Court’s Analysis
Unforeseeability: A Central Yet Constrained Notion
Section 2107 of the Civil Code of Québec allows a contractor to claim a higher price than originally agreed upon if the work, services, or expenses were unforeseeable at the time the contract was concluded. In its decision, the Court took care to emphasize that the burden of proving the unforeseeable nature of the work lies with the contractor.
In this case, Titan argued that the condition of the building and the structural problems were not foreseeable since it had not had access to detailed plans and specifications. The Court rejected this argument, noting that Titan had the opportunity to visit the building, had received a pre-purchase inspection report, and had considerable experience in renovation. It therefore held that Titan should have taken the necessary time to assess the condition of the building and could not invoke its own lack of diligence to justify the cost overruns.
The Duty to Provide Information: A Proactive and Ongoing Obligation
Section 2100 of the Civil Code of Québec requires the contractor to act in the best interests of their clients, with prudence and diligence. Section 2102 specifies that the contractor must provide clients with all useful information regarding the nature of the task, as well as the goods and time necessary to complete it.
The Court concluded that Titan had failed in its duty to inform by not letting Ms. Mohamed know in a timely manner that the initial budget proposal would be significantly exceeded due to structural issues. The Court emphasized that this duty to inform is ongoing and applies even after the contract has been formed. Titan was therefore required to notify Ms. Mohamed as soon as it became aware that the costs would be significantly higher than anticipated.
Unpaid Bills: A Reason for Termination that Needs Clarification
Section 2126 of the Civil Code of Québec allows a contractor to unilaterally terminate a contract only for a serious reason. However, the Court held that, under the circumstances, Ms. Mohamed’s non-payment of invoices did not constitute a serious reason for termination.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the fact that Ms. Mohamed had already paid a substantial amount representing more than 65% of the initial budget, that the additional costs were attributable to foreseeable problems, and that the termination occurred at an inopportune moment. Finally, the Court also noted that Titan had not given Ms. Mohamed notice of default before leaving the site.
The Court’s Conclusion
The Court partially allowed Ms. Abdou Mohamed’s claim and ordered Titan to pay her $365,037.37, representing the difference between the initial budget and the amounts paid to other contractors to complete the work, as well as $50,000 in overcharges. The Court dismissed Titan’s counterclaim.
Key Takeaways
Several important principles can be drawn from this decision. Before entering into a contract for services, the contractor must make a rigorous evaluation of the work to be done and take all relevant factors into account. The contractor must communicate openly with the client and inform them of any significant changes in costs or deadlines. Moreover, this duty to inform is continuous and applies even after the contract has been formed.
Furthermore, since the termination of a contract for services must be based on a serious reason and must not occur at an inopportune moment, it is essential to document all aspects of the contract thoroughly, including costs, work accomplished, and communications between the parties.
In short, this decision highlights the importance for contractors to demonstrate professionalism, transparency, and respect for their contractual obligations. It is therefore incumbent upon clients to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the terms of the contract and to adequately monitor the progress of the work in order to better assert their rights in the event of a dispute.
Don’t hesitate to contact our team: whatever the nature of your issue, our experienced lawyers will provide you with effective solutions.
Written with the collaboration of Laury-Ann Bernier, Law Lecturer.
1Mohamed c. 9297-8493 Québec Inc., 2025 QCCS 215.