Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute arose over whether a publisher misrepresented itself as a traditional publishing house.

• Author sought contract annulment and damages under Québec’s consumer protection law.

• Publisher's hybrid model was disclosed in the signed contract, undermining claims of deception.

• Quality of printed book challenged but no expert evidence supported the author’s claim.

• Tribunal held the publishing format and style were within contractual discretion of the publisher.

• Author failed to prove alleged harm to career or health with sufficient documentation.

Facts and procedural background

Jennifer Sadai, an experienced author, entered into a publishing agreement with AOS Publishing Inc. in December 2022 for her book titled B.E.S.T.. Believing the company to be a traditional publisher based on its website, she later discovered—after publication—that AOS operated as a hybrid publisher. In this model, the author contributes financially to the production process, including editing fees and purchasing a minimum number of copies.

Following the delivery of printed books, Sadai expressed disappointment with their presentation. She found the font size too small and layout unprofessional. She claimed this negatively affected her ability to sell the book and participate in a promotional campaign. Alleging misrepresentation and subpar production, she filed two small claims actions: one to annul the contract and recover $4,796.94 paid to the publisher, and the other seeking $2,500 in damages for stress and lost income.

The alleged misrepresentation claim

The core of the author’s argument was that AOS falsely portrayed itself as a traditional publisher. The court disagreed. The publishing contract explicitly stated the author would pay editing fees and purchase a set number of copies at a discount—hallmarks of a hybrid model. These financial obligations were clearly outlined in clauses 13 and 5 of the agreement. The judge found that the plaintiff knew or should have known of the hybrid nature of the arrangement when she signed. Therefore, no misrepresentation occurred, and her claim for contract annulment was denied.

Challenges to the book’s formatting and printing

Sadai also contended that the print quality rendered the book unsellable. However, she had received and approved the final version of the manuscript before printing. Although she claimed to have been unaware of the reduced font size in the second version, her approval email acknowledged she was ready to proceed. The court highlighted that under clause 5, AOS retained final discretion over style and formatting choices. Without expert testimony to establish a printing defect or failure to meet contractual terms, her claim lacked evidentiary support and was rejected.

Claim for damages due to career and health impact

Sadai argued that the experience harmed her writing career and contributed to a thyroid condition due to stress. The court ruled that such claims required more than personal testimony. There was no corroborating medical or professional documentation presented. The court emphasized the burden to prove damages, causation, and fault in civil matters and found the evidence insufficient.

Final decision

The Tribunal dismissed both of Sadai’s claims. It found no contractual fault, no valid misrepresentation, and no proven damages. As a result, her requests for annulment and monetary compensation were denied, with legal costs awarded against her.