Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff company claimed damages due to the defendant’s immediate resignation without 48 hours’ notice, allegedly breaching a service agreement.

• The contract was ambiguous, with generic terms and no clear provision on who maintained the vehicle used for deliveries.

• The defendant argued his resignation was justified due to ongoing mechanical failures posing a safety risk.

• The court found that the defendant had not received a copy of the contract and could not reasonably comply with the alleged notice requirement.

• No evidence supported the plaintiff's claim that it lost its delivery route or incurred financial losses due to the resignation.

• The court ruled that the defendant was not liable for damages and awarded court costs against the plaintiff.

Facts of the case

The dispute in 9310-6573 Québec inc. v. Fafard, 2025 QCCQ 1480 arose from a claim filed in Québec’s Small Claims Court. The plaintiff company, represented by Mr. Said Moumen, sought $12,000 in damages from Alexandre Fafard, who had provided delivery services under a signed service agreement. The plaintiff alleged that Fafard breached the agreement by resigning without providing the required 48 hours’ notice. The claimed amount reflected lost income supposedly due to losing a delivery route after being unable to find a replacement driver.

Fafard defended the claim by stating that his resignation was justified for safety reasons. According to him, the vehicle he was required to use had repeated cooling system issues, including coolant leaks and emergency repairs. He explained that on the day of his resignation in December, the engine began smoking, and he decided it was unsafe to continue, immediately returning the keys and stepping away from the contract.

Legal issues and court analysis

The court first addressed whether Fafard was bound to provide 48 hours’ notice. While a contract had been signed, it was a pre-filled service agreement with generic language, no specified start date, and no clear provisions regarding vehicle maintenance responsibility. Importantly, the court noted that Fafard had never received a copy of the contract and was handed one for the first time during the hearing. The judge found that this undermined the enforceability of the notice provision and made it unreasonable to expect compliance with terms that were never adequately disclosed.

The court then turned to the damages claim. Mr. Moumen asserted that the company lost a delivery route because it could not replace Fafard in time. However, no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate this allegation—no communications from the contracting delivery company, and no proof of efforts to find a replacement driver. The judge ruled that the claim was speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The court also highlighted that the contract itself included a clause allowing unilateral termination without compensation for damages, further weakening the plaintiff’s position. As a result, the judge concluded that even if the resignation had constituted a breach, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual loss or entitlement to compensation.

Conclusion

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim in full, finding that the service contract was vague, poorly communicated, and unenforceable in the way the plaintiff intended. It also held that the plaintiff failed to prove any damages. As a result, 9310-6573 Québec inc.’s claim was dismissed, and the court ordered the company to pay $211 in legal costs to Alexandre Fafard.