Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute arose over unpaid landscaping work performed under a $39,000 contract with additional verbally agreed work.

• Plaintiff successfully demonstrated execution of contracted and additional services with partial documentation and corroborating testimony.

• Defendants challenged the invoice based on alleged defects and lack of tax numbers, which the court rejected as unfounded.

• Court analyzed each item of the invoice to determine what was properly owed and what lacked evidentiary support.

• Defendants' counterclaim for $6,500 in irrigation and geothermal system damages was dismissed due to lack of evidence and proper notice.

• Judgment awarded $2,410 plus applicable taxes and legal costs to the plaintiff against one defendant only.

Facts and procedural background

In 6701400 Canada inc. v. Marquis, 2025 QCCQ 1186, the plaintiff, a landscaping and excavation company, sued defendants Michel Marquis and Diane Bouchard for unpaid work under a written landscaping contract signed in December 2019. The contract was valued at $39,000 plus taxes, with the project completed by summer 2021. Additional work was performed based on verbal agreements, bringing the claimed invoice total to $59,660 before taxes. A formal demand was issued in November 2021 for the unpaid balance of $25,844.09, but the defendants refused to pay, alleging project delays, cost overruns, and damage to their irrigation and geothermal systems.

Assessment of the contractor’s claim

The Court found that the plaintiff established completion of the originally contracted work and some additional services, entitling it to partial payment. The court accepted that Marquis and Bouchard had paid $42,750 to date and that a portion of the remaining charges was justified under both written and verbal agreements. While the clients argued that a $3,500 charge for a front-yard retaining wall was unjustified, the Court ruled this work had been anticipated in the original contract, even if delayed due to municipal approvals. However, it rejected claims for $1,500 related to paving around a fire pit and the additional $3,500 for the same wall, finding insufficient evidence of any new or modified agreement justifying these charges.

The judge determined that the legitimate unpaid balance amounted to $2,410 plus taxes, stemming from charges for new cedars, replacement sod, and lighting that were not covered by previous payments. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that they were not obligated to pay because the invoice lacked tax numbers. It held that taxes are always payable on services rendered and that the plaintiff’s documents clearly itemized and calculated GST and QST.

Rejection of the counterclaim

The defendants filed a $6,500 counterclaim, alleging damage to their irrigation and geothermal systems caused during the landscaping work. However, they failed to submit any invoices, estimates, or proof of repair costs, nor did they show that the plaintiff had been given formal notice or an opportunity to correct the issue. A single text message was insufficient to support such a claim, and the court found the counterclaim entirely unsubstantiated. Accordingly, it was dismissed in full.

Conclusion

The Court of Québec partially upheld the plaintiff’s claim, awarding $2,410 in principal, plus GST and QST on the full value of the work performed ($45,160), and legal interest from the date of the formal demand. The claim was allowed only against Michel Marquis, as Diane Bouchard was not a party to the signed contract nor named on the invoice. The defendants’ counterclaim was dismissed, and costs were awarded against both Marquis and Bouchard. This case highlights the need for proper documentation of contract modifications and the burden on parties claiming damages to provide specific proof.