Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sought monetary compensation for alleged loss of equipment left in the defendant’s possession.

• Defendant acknowledged possession but promptly offered return of the items upon request.

• Court found no evidence of fault, damage, or refusal by defendant to return the property.

• Plaintiff failed to inspect the items or accept repeated offers of retrieval.

• Claim for damages was unsupported by proof of prejudice or causal connection to any wrongdoing.

• Defendant deemed entitled to conclude plaintiff had abandoned the equipment.

Factual background and procedural history

Aircraft Certification Enterprise Services (ACES) Inc. brought an action in Quebec’s Small Claims Court seeking $15,000 from Airbase Services ULC. ACES claimed this amount as partial value of four pieces of equipment—namely a printer/copier, a desk, a fumigation device, and a carpet-cleaning machine—that it alleged were still in the defendant’s possession. These items were located in commercial space once used by ACES but controlled by Airbase Services.

The dispute arose out of a broader shareholder settlement agreement dating back to 2019, which saw Mr. Kamal Pharoun become the sole shareholder of ACES. ACES claimed the equipment was transferred to it either by Mr. Pharoun personally or by a related entity, and that it was entitled to reclaim possession or be compensated for loss.

Legal analysis and court findings

The court first rejected the defendant’s preliminary argument regarding prescription, finding the claim to be timely. On the merits, Airbase Services admitted to possessing the equipment and, following receipt of a letter dated May 31, 2022, promptly offered the plaintiff multiple opportunities to retrieve the items. The court found that this offer was made in good faith and within a reasonable period.

Crucially, ACES did not act on the offer. Mr. Pharoun dismissed the response as “too late” and referred the matter to legal counsel, without taking any steps to examine or recover the equipment. At trial, he admitted to never having visited the premises to inspect the condition of the items. The court found this conduct inconsistent with a party genuinely seeking recovery or demonstrating actual harm.

The court reminded that under Quebec civil law, the burden lies with the plaintiff to establish fault, harm, and a causal link between the two. In this case, ACES failed to establish any of these elements. No evidence of damage or usage by the defendant was provided. Moreover, Airbase’s conduct—prompt communication and willingness to return the items—did not constitute civil fault. The court held that it was reasonable for the defendant to conclude that the equipment had been abandoned.

Conclusion and outcome

The Court of Québec dismissed ACES Inc.’s claim in its entirety. It found that the plaintiff failed to prove any civil liability on the part of Airbase Services, and that the refusal to retrieve the equipment undermined any claim of prejudice. The court further ordered ACES to pay court costs in the amount of $346 to the defendant. The case highlights the importance of acting diligently when reclaiming property and providing sufficient proof of loss when seeking compensatory damages.