Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Giclocept Inc. claimed $19,258.31 for fire protection system design services allegedly requested by Constructions H2D Inc.

• The dispute centered on whether H2D or a related entity, Groupe Dubé Investissement Inc. (GDI), was the true contracting party.

• Verbal acceptance, past dealings, and clearly addressed documentation supported the finding that H2D was the client.

• H2D’s refusal to pay based on technicalities was found unsubstantiated, but not abusive in law.

• The court emphasized the credibility of contemporaneous emails and consistent testimony over unsupported denials.

• Giclocept’s claim for attorney fees based on abusive defense was rejected due to the absence of frivolous or dilatory intent.

Facts of the case

In Giclocept inc. c. Constructions H2D inc., 2025 QCCQ 1922, the plaintiff, Giclocept Inc., filed a claim for $19,258.31 against Constructions H2D Inc. (H2D) for services rendered in designing a fire protection system for a commercial building that housed H2D’s head office. Giclocept alleged that H2D had contracted its services verbally and later refused to pay for the completed work. In response, H2D denied entering into any contract with Giclocept, asserting that the request for the fire protection system had come from a separate company—Groupe Dubé Investissement Inc. (GDI), which owns the building.

Giclocept had completed two previous contracts for H2D, which had been paid without dispute. The parties’ representative, Guy Pilote from H2D, contacted Giclocept’s Paul-Kim Normand in late 2020 to design a new fire protection system required by H2D’s insurer. Giclocept submitted a service proposal addressed to H2D’s head office, later revised and verbally approved by Pilote. Giclocept carried out the work from November 2020 through July 2021, delivered the design plans, and issued an invoice to H2D in June 2021. H2D remained silent until December 2021, when Giclocept followed up on the unpaid invoice. A meeting between both parties in May 2022 escalated into a confrontation, where for the first time Pilote claimed the invoice should have been addressed to GDI.

The court’s legal analysis

The court assessed whether H2D had in fact given the contract to Giclocept. While Pilote insisted that the work was for GDI’s benefit and that he had mentioned this to Normand, the court found no evidence supporting that claim. Testimony from Giclocept’s representatives and a series of clear, contemporaneous emails indicated that all communications and documentation had consistently identified H2D as the client. The court rejected the notion that Giclocept should have inferred a different corporate entity was the client simply because other businesses shared the premises.

The Tribunal found Giclocept’s witnesses credible and consistent, while Pilote’s version of events appeared unconvincing and unsupported by documentation. Pilote also admitted that he had received and reviewed the documents showing H2D as the addressee but had not raised any objections at the time. The court noted that any alleged request to amend the invoice came too late and appeared opportunistic, as the insurer had changed its stance and no longer required the fire protection system, rendering the plans unnecessary.

Regarding Giclocept’s secondary claim for attorney fees, the court concluded that although some of H2D’s initial arguments lacked merit and were abandoned, its core defense—that GDI was the proper contracting party—was not frivolous or dilatory. As such, the court declined to declare the defense abusive under Article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Outcome

The Court of Québec upheld Giclocept’s claim in full. It ordered Constructions H2D Inc. to pay $19,258.31, along with legal interest and the additional indemnity under Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, effective from June 20, 2022. The request to declare H2D’s defense abusive and to recover attorney fees was dismissed, and H2D was ordered to pay court costs. The judgment reinforces the enforceability of clear verbal agreements and documented business practices in commercial disputes.