In the fall of 2019, water infiltrated the roof of a building that had been renovated several years earlier. The insurer sought reimbursement from the general contractor for the indemnity it had paid to the property owner. The court ultimately split liability equally between the parties. 

The Personal General Insurance is the plaintiff in the case. The damaged building is in Montréal-Nord. The water infiltration was discovered on October 1, 2019. The insurer paid the building owner $75,905.40. 

The insurer then brought an action against 9202-9784 Québec inc., operating under the name Toiture Expert, seeking recovery of the same amount. The general contractor had carried out the roof replacement work on the building in November 2011. 

The insurer alleged that the company was liable for design, construction or workmanship defects affecting the work. It argued that the water damage resulted from a defective installation or improper handling of the parapet flashing at the rear of the building, which allegedly caused the roofing membrane to tear. The contractor had originally been retained to correct recurring roof waterproofing problems. 

For its part, the defendant argued that the insurer's claim was prescribed. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the insurer's action, based on legal subrogation, was not prescribed. 

The contractor also maintained that the damage was unrelated to its work. It further argued that the insured had contributed to the worsening of the damage and that the insurer had made its payments without any obligation arising under the insurance contract. 

Lastly, the defendant claimed that a fire occurring after 2011 had damaged the building's structure. However, the court did not take that argument into account because the evidence on file did not support the allegation. 

The building and the work 

The trial was held in November 2025 in the judicial district of Montréal. Québec Court Judge Yves Hamel took the matter under advisement on January 13, 2026. The decision is dated June 11, 2026. 

The amount of damages agreed upon by both parties totalled $60,704.20, with the difference attributable to depreciation applied to the corrective work performed on the building. 

The property is a triplex built in 1964, comprising two five-room apartments and a basement studio. The insured purchased the building in July 2011. He was immediately informed by the second-floor tenant that there were water infiltrations in the kitchen ceiling. 

The parties disagreed on the extent of the water accumulation that allegedly prompted the 2011 work. The roofing surface to be replaced covered approximately 1,200 square feet. 

The work completed in November 2011 cost just over $9,000, including taxes, and the contractor provided a 10-year warranty, subject to certain conditions, including removing snow from the roof when necessary. 

Two or three years later, the owner of the neighbouring triplex pointed out to the insured that water was accumulating in the same location as before. Water infiltration continued to occur during the spring thaw. On several occasions over the following years, the owner informed the contractor about the recurring infiltration problems affecting the tenant's kitchen. 

Toiture Expert maintained that the roof's waterproofing had been inspected and that the issue was caused by condensation resulting from poor attic ventilation, which led to ice formation. 

The loss of October 1, 2019 was caused by heavy rainfall and, this time, all the units sustained damage. The insurer retained another firm to investigate the cause of the flooding. In its report dated November 28, 2019, the insurer's expert identified the roof's inadequate slope and recommended corrective work. 

The repairs were not carried out until the summer of 2020 because of the insured's professional commitments. In September 2020, the contractor stripped the roofing system and installed a new covering at a cost of $4,600. No further water infiltration has occurred since. 

The insurer's expert stated that the tear in the membrane at the parapet on the right-hand side was relatively recent and had likely been caused by handling of the metal coping. Based on the balance of probabilities established at trial, the court found that this work had been carried out by Toiture Expert to address the recurring water infiltration. The insured had patched the tear himself. 

The findings 

The court found that the insurer acted properly in indemnifying its insured. However, the invoice for mould decontamination work was, "in all probability, more closely related to the recurring water infiltration" that had begun before 2011 than to the accidental flooding of October 2019. 

In addition, that remedial work was performed nearly one year after the loss at the insured's request. Judge Hamel concluded that the $5,840.55 invoice could not therefore be attributed to the defendant. 

All the other items included in the insurer's claim were found to be justified and covered under the policy. The sudden and accidental water damage that occurred in October 2019 was also covered under the policy. 

However, the court concluded that the damages claimed by the insurer should be apportioned between the insured and the contractor. The inadequate slope toward the rear right-hand side of the roof was identified in the expert report prepared in November 2019. The resulting water accumulation had been known to the owner since 2011, if not 2014. Nevertheless, the owner took no steps to correct the problem. 

According to the evidence, between 2015 and 2019 the insured asked the contractor to identify the source of the water infiltration rather than correct the water accumulation problem. In June 2014, the insured took photographs showing the standing water on the roof but did not send them to the contractor. 

While the court found that the tear in the membrane was attributable to the defendant, it determined that the extent of the damage resulted from the pool of water forming on the rear right-hand portion of the roof, preventing the roof drain from functioning properly. In other words, had the insured corrected the underlying problem, the damage caused by the water infiltration would have been less extensive. 

The court apportioned civil liability equally, assigning 50 per cent to the contractor and 50 per cent to the insured. This resulted in an award of $27,431.88. 

The cost of the expert report commissioned by the insurer and payable by the defendant was limited to $1,566.50, including the cost of preparing the report and one-half of the fees claimed for the expert's trial preparation and testimony.