Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the respondent satisfied its burden of proving that all billed hours for engineering consultation services were actually worked on the railway bridge refurbishment project

• Admissibility and probative value of the client InfraMTL's verification processes and payment evaluations as evidence of services rendered

• Credibility assessment of engineer Alexandre Zecius despite inconsistencies in time sheets and contradictions in testimony

• Application of settlement privilege to exclude InfraMTL's second evaluation prepared during compromise negotiations

• Standard of appellate review and whether the trial judge's assessment of damages was manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate

• Evidentiary objections raised on appeal regarding hearsay, expert opinion, and testimonial evidence not challenged at trial

Background and parties

Spécialiste d'ouvrages d'art CSTP Inc. (the appellant) engaged Zecius MFG Inc. (the respondent) to provide consultation services through its representative, engineer Alexandre Zecius, for a railway bridge refurbishment project spanning the Lachine Canal. The appellant's client for this project was InfraMTL, who was the beneficiary of the respondent's services.

The dispute

The respondent claimed $168,448.73 after taxes for professional fees. The respondent had already received $56,716.53 including taxes. The appellant refused to pay the balance, challenging whether all billed hours had actually been worked.

Trial court findings

The trial judge found that several witnesses recognized that Alexandre Zecius had genuinely worked on the project from May to December 2021 and that the appellant benefited from certain work performed, particularly his presence at weekly meetings, provision of project schedules, and delivery of certain methodologies. However, the judge also determined that Zecius's time sheets were not reliable and that his credibility had been shaken at trial.

The judge concluded that a dual verification process for the respondent's hours was in place. InfraMTL scrutinized the respondent's invoices that the appellant submitted to it. InfraMTL conducted a new review process after the respondent's departure in December 2021 and transmitted its analysis of amounts billed representing $152,431.43 before taxes for approved hours, which amount the appellant received in payment.

Trial court decision

Justice Sébastien Pierre-Roy of the Superior Court, district of Bedford, rendered judgment on May 9, 2024. The judge awarded the respondent $118,941.41 after taxes on a total claim of $168,448.73 after taxes, thereby deducting approximately 30% of the amount claimed. The judge took into account the inconsistencies detected in Zecius's time sheets as well as contradictions in his testimony.

Grounds of appeal

The appellant argued that the judge erred in partially granting the respondent's claim when the latter had not satisfied its burden of demonstrating that each and every billed hour had been worked, especially after determining that Zecius's time sheets were not reliable and that his credibility had been shaken. The appellant contended the judge erred in relying on InfraMTL's evaluations, arguing that the first evaluation related to "falsified" time sheets and that the second evaluation was inadmissible as evidence since it was protected by settlement privilege. The appellant also argued that InfraMTL's evaluations constituted hearsay and opinions not emanating from an expert and were therefore not admissible, just like the testimony of InfraMTL's representative, Mr. Bouchard.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal, composed of Justices Geneviève Marcotte, Stephen W. Hamilton, and Judith Harvie, found that none of these grounds were well-founded. The trial judge committed no reviewable error in partially granting the respondent's claim.

The Court noted that the appellant was wrong to assert that InfraMTL's verification processes were inadmissible. The judge could exercise his discretionary power when evaluating the probative weight of this evidence, which concerned a fact at issue without qualifying as an expert opinion or hearsay. The appellant did not raise an objection to this evidence at the hearing. In fact, the appellant even questioned Mr. Bouchard about these documents it now asked the Court to exclude.

The Court emphasized that appellate courts do not question the weight attributed by the trial judge to different pieces of evidence, nor intervene in the assessment made unless the amount awarded shocks their sense of justice because it is manifestly disproportionate or unreasonable. This applies with even greater force when the entire evidentiary record has not been filed in the appeal record.

Ruling and outcome

The Court concluded that the appellant was dissatisfied with the trial judgment and was inviting the Court to retry the case and re-evaluate the evidence, which is not the appellate court's role absent demonstration of manifest and determinative error. The trial judge considered all the evidence and took time to meticulously analyze the invoices and deduct fees that did not appear justified based on the evidence, arriving at a result that was not unreasonable. The amount awarded by the judge, when added to the sum already received by the respondent, was almost equivalent to the sum paid to the appellant by InfraMTL for the respondent's services.

On October 3, 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs. Zecius MFG Inc. was the successful party, securing a total monetary award of $175,657.94 taxes included when combining the trial judgment award of $118,941.41 with the previously received $56,716.53. Legal costs were also awarded in favor of Zecius MFG Inc., though the specific amount of costs was not determined in the decision.