back to publications search

The Concept of Professional Activities: Desjardins Assurances Générales Inc. v. Nadeau et Promutuel Lac St-Pierre Les Forges, SMAG, S.C. Richelieu, 765-17-000577-074

November 19, 2012

Promutuel insured Nadeau under an “owner-occupant” policy.  Nadeau did not hold a plumber’s certificate, but he was known around town as having plumbing skills and he did odd jobs, earning approximately $1,200 a year, which was undeclared.

In this capacity, Nadeau went to visit Houde, who was insured by Desjardins, to replace a faucet.  While using a blowtorch, Nadeau accidentally set fire to the home, which was completely destroyed.  There was no doubt of Nadeau’s liability, which was even admitted.

Desjardins brought an action in subrogation against Nadeau and his insurer, Promutuel.  Nadeau did not file an action against Promotuel, recognizing that he knew he was not covered for that kind of work under his contract.

Promutuel raised three lines of defence:

  1. Nadeau was Houde’s “household employee” and, as such, was an insured under the wording of Desjardins’s policy, so Desjardins could not sue him;
  2. Nadeau was part of Houde’s “household,” and Desjardins could not bring a subrogatory action against him; and
  3. The work done by Nadeau constituted “professional activities,” which were subject to an exclusion in Promutuel’s policy.
  4. The action was granted against Nadeau, but dismissed against Promutuel.

First, the judge found that Nadeau was not a household employee, for he had only worked for Houde on a very occasional and infrequent basis, and there was no relationship of subservience, authority, supervision, management, control or direction between the two men.

Next, the judge found that Nadeau was not part of Houde’s “household” as understood in Article2474 C.C.Q., for there was no bond of intimacy, family, or special closeness between them.

However, the judge was of the opinion that Nadeau was performing professional activities that were subject to an exclusion in the policy, even though those activities only earned him a very minimal income, the policy not stipulating that he had to earn his living from such endeavours for them to constitute a “professional activity.”

The decision is under appeal (500-09-023017-122).

Do not miss the latest developments in Canadian insurance law

Subscribe