Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Revenu Québec charged a restaurant operator with failing to issue a compliant receipt using a prescribed sales recording system.

• The defendant argued that the intermediary platform DoorDash was responsible for invoicing, not the restaurant itself.

• No evidence was provided by the defendant to establish DoorDash’s legal role or the nature of the contractual relationship.

• The court found that the statutory obligation to issue a receipt via the MEV lies with the operator of the restaurant.

• The judge rejected the argument that a third-party platform could shift responsibility for tax compliance.

• The defendant was found guilty, as the evidence showed a clear contravention of mandatory invoicing requirements.

Facts of the case

On November 15, 2023, during a routine anonymous inspection, a tax officer from Revenu Québec placed a food order through the DoorDash mobile application from “Poutine Centrale,” a restaurant operated by 9273-6016 Québec inc. The order was placed for pick-up, and the officer received the food at the location in a brown bag with only a DoorDash receipt. Crucially, no receipt from a prescribed sales recording system (MEV) was issued, which is a legal requirement under Quebec tax law.

A follow-up in-person inspection at the restaurant was conducted on November 21, 2023. The tax officer confirmed with the administrator, Chloé Jacmain, that the restaurant was indeed operated by 9273-6016 Québec inc. An audit of the restaurant’s MEV data revealed that the transaction from November 15 was not recorded in the system.

Revenu Québec charged the company with violating section 350.52 of the Loi sur la taxe de vente du Québec (LTVQ), which requires all food service establishments to issue invoices containing specific information generated by a certified MEV. This contravention is punishable under section 61.0.0.1 of the Loi sur l’administration fiscale.

Arguments raised by the defendant

At trial, the defendant company did not contest the facts but raised legal defenses. First, it argued that the obligation to issue a compliant receipt did not fall on the restaurant but rather on DoorDash, as the intermediary handling the order. Second, it suggested that, at most, the violation would concern a different provision of the tax law—section 350.53—relating to issuing an incorrect document, rather than failing to issue a receipt altogether.

Court’s analysis and reasoning

The Court rejected the defense. The key issue was whether the obligation to issue a tax-compliant receipt using an MEV belonged to the restaurant or to the intermediary service. The judge held that the restaurant operator is the “exploitant” under the LTVQ and is legally required to comply with invoicing rules regardless of the sales channel used.

Importantly, the defendant provided no documentary or testimonial evidence to support its claims about the relationship with DoorDash or how transaction responsibilities were allocated. The court emphasized that the role of DoorDash, even as a facilitator, does not relieve the restaurant of its legal duties under Quebec’s tax law.

The judge cited jurisprudence to reinforce the view that the operator of the establishment retains the obligation to generate tax receipts through an MEV, and that this responsibility is not delegable to third-party platforms like DoorDash.

Conclusion and outcome

The Court found 9273-6016 Québec inc. guilty of the offence under section 61.0.0.1 of the Loi sur l’administration fiscale for failing to issue a compliant tax receipt. A separate hearing was scheduled for sentencing and the determination of fines and costs. The ruling confirms the principle that restaurants must comply with invoicing rules even when orders are facilitated by third-party platforms.