Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on whether the defendant breached a service contract by delivering unqualified client referrals.

• Plaintiff admitted no guarantee of results was included in the signed agreement.

• Tribunal assessed if the defendant fulfilled its obligation of means, not results, under Québec civil law.

• No evidence showed HTK’s practices deviated from industry standards or violated contractual terms.

• Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction was based on subjective impressions and not supported by probative evidence.

• The court ruled the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof under the balance of probabilities standard.

Facts and outcome

Simon Lepage, a mortgage specialist affiliated exclusively with the Bank of Montreal, entered into a service contract with Groupe HTK inc. to set up and manage online advertising campaigns. The goal was to generate qualified leads—potential clients seeking mortgage-related services. The contract, signed on August 17, 2022, focused on deploying ads on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Google.

HTK executed the campaign shortly after the agreement was finalized. Leads were collected through online forms, where users voluntarily submitted information such as credit scores and real estate ownership. HTK agents conducted follow-up verification calls where possible, although not all prospects were cooperative. Over the course of the engagement, approximately fifty leads were received, with around twenty forwarded to Mr. Lepage.

Mr. Lepage acknowledged receiving the agreed services and confirmed that he had been provided with about twenty client referrals. However, he was dissatisfied with the quality of these leads, as they failed to convert into sales. He claimed that only three to five referrals could even be reached, and among them, several were unsuitable due to low credit scores or mismatched financial needs.

He brought the matter before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, seeking reimbursement and damages. He alleged that HTK failed to meet contractual obligations by providing unqualified referrals. However, the evidence showed that the contract contained no performance guarantees, and HTK had no obligation to deliver actual clients—only to use reasonable means to generate potential leads.

The court examined the relevant contractual clauses and the standards outlined in Articles 1434 and 2100 of the Civil Code of Québec. It found that HTK acted with the required prudence and diligence. The plaintiff did not establish that the defendant’s methods breached industry norms or violated the terms of the contract. The judge emphasized that mere dissatisfaction or subjective belief does not amount to proof under Québec’s evidentiary rules.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Mr. Lepage’s claim, concluding he failed to demonstrate that HTK had not met its contractual obligations. He was also ordered to pay $163 in court costs to the defendant.