Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Contractual dispute over unpaid transportation services invoiced in 2020.

• Challenge raised concerning the prescription delay under the Civil Code of Québec.

• COVID-19 suspension orders extended the applicable limitation period.

• Plaintiff failed to produce direct evidence from the only person involved in service delivery.

• Defendant's uncontested testimony deemed credible and persuasive by the court.

• Claim dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof.

Background of the parties and the dispute

Digital Soft City Inc., occasionally operating as Puronow Transport, provides long-haul transportation services. In this case, it brought a small claims action before the Court of Québec’s Division des petites créances against 9323686 Canada Inc., doing business under the name GT Road Express. Digital sought a total of $2,630.83, representing several transportation-related charges it claimed were unpaid from services rendered in January 2020. These included fees for transportation, city work, layovers, meat inspection, and administrative costs. The actual services were performed by David Samson, whose son, Simon Samson, represented Digital in court.

Defendant’s response and counterclaims

9323686 Canada Inc. contested the claim entirely, asserting that no amount was owed and, in fact, Digital was the one indebted by $107.58 based on a past invoice. However, the defendant had not initiated any legal action to recover that sum. This counterposition was detailed in a letter sent to Digital on July 31, 2023.

Attempt to proceed by default judgment

At the start of the hearing, Digital asked the court to proceed by default, citing Canada Inc.’s late submission of its written contestation. The court rejected this request, noting two reasons: Digital had delayed too long in raising the issue, effectively waiving the argument, and the delay had not caused any prejudice to Digital’s legal interests. The judge emphasized the fundamental right to be heard and applied the principle of judicial fairness in refusing to bar the defendant’s participation.

Legal analysis on prescription period

The Tribunal then considered whether the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred. Under article 2925 of the Civil Code of Québec, personal rights claims must be filed within three years from the date the right arises. Since the transportation services were completed by January 2020, the three-year limit would normally have expired in January 2023. However, due to emergency suspension orders enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, prescription deadlines were paused from March 15 to August 31, 2020. The law also granted a 45-day grace period thereafter. Accounting for these extensions, Digital’s final deadline became June 27, 2023. The court confirmed that the claim filed on June 20, 2023, was therefore timely.

Failure to meet the burden of proof

Even though the claim was within the legal time limit, the court found Digital’s case deficient in evidence. Under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q., a plaintiff must prove the facts supporting its claim. Here, the only person with direct knowledge of the services, David Samson, did not testify. Instead, his son Simon Samson, who had no personal involvement in the events, acted on behalf of Digital. This left the plaintiff’s assertions unsupported by firsthand testimony or documentary corroboration.

Credibility of the defendant’s testimony

In contrast, the defendant’s representative, Hardeep Singh, testified and provided specific responses to the allegations. Since there was no rebuttal or contradiction from David Samson, the court accepted Singh’s testimony as credible and grounded. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish any of the factual elements necessary to support its financial claim.

Conclusion and final judgment

The Tribunal concluded that Digital Soft City Inc. did not discharge its burden of proof and ruled in favor of 9323686 Canada Inc. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in full. Additionally, the court ordered Digital to pay $173 in legal costs.