Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Lawfulness of the contractor’s unilateral resiliation under article 2126 C.c.Q. based on the client’s abusive and threatening conduct.
• Application of article 2129 C.c.Q. to compare $41,902 paid with the higher expert-assessed value of work completed at $57,940.
• Decisive weight given to an independent building inspector’s report over the owner’s imprecise testimony about incomplete and defective work.
• Failure to prove that paint bubbles and peeling were malfaçons attributable to the contractor rather than humidity and multiple pre-existing paint layers.
• Insufficient evidence and causation for alleged extra completion costs, theft of a sink, and claimed rental losses on a different property.
• Consequent dismissal of the owner’s entire $92,755.46 claim, with only judicial costs (including $1,200 expert fees and other tariff costs) recoverable by the contractor and their exact total not quantifiable from the judgment.

Facts of the case
Mr. Guanghui Zhang owned a residence on Stonehenge Drive in Beaconsfield and, in January 2023, engaged contractor Mr. Xiao Miao to perform painting and renovation work before moving in. The move-in date was planned for 1 July 2023, after completion of the works, so that Mr. Zhang could then rent out his existing property on rue Jacqueline-Sicotte in Montréal. On 31 January 2023, the parties signed a detailed written contract, drafted in Mandarin with an English translation produced in court, which described the work by item, set specific prices for various components and divided the project into phases and a separate kitchen component. The contract provided for a preliminary schedule from 9 March to 9 June 2023, a $2,000 deposit, and staged payments of 50% at the start of each item and 50% upon acceptance, along with particular payment terms for the kitchen works. Mr. Zhang paid the deposit on 31 January. After additional partial payments, the parties modified the agreement through WeChat messages on 11 March 2023. Mr. Miao began work on 13 March, paused to allow other trades and deal with a power outage, and resumed on 10 April. The first phase concluded on 3 May. A second modification was recorded on 4 May, and the second phase ran from 4 to 29 May 2023. During this period, relations soured: Mr. Zhang complained of alleged defects, including paint “bubbles,” and took photographs between 28 May and 1 June, while Mr. Miao described escalating verbal abuse and even death threats, for which he contacted the police, though without receiving assistance.

Contractual framework and governing provisions
The Court of Québec characterised the relationship as a contract of enterprise or services under the Civil Code of Québec. It therefore applied articles 2125 and 2126 C.c.Q., which allow a client to unilaterally resiliate at will and permit an entrepreneur to resiliate only for a serious motive and not at an inopportune time. The contract itself did not specify the financial consequences of early termination, so article 2129 C.c.Q. supplied the framework: upon resiliation, the client must pay, in proportion to the agreed price, the expenses and the value of the work performed and usable materials, while the entrepreneur must refund any advances received in excess of what he has earned, with each party also liable for any further proven prejudice. The court also relied on article 1375 C.c.Q., imposing a duty of good faith throughout contractual performance, and on articles 1590 and 1604 C.c.Q., which govern resiliation for non-performance, since Mr. Zhang’s lawyer attempted to invoke those provisions in his demand letter. There was no insurance or other policy wording at issue; the key “terms” discussed were these Civil Code provisions, which effectively operated as the operative clauses governing resiliation, valuation of the work and apportionment of financial consequences.

Breakdown of the relationship and competing terminations
Evidence showed that the relationship between client and contractor deteriorated sharply during the second phase. Screenshots of WeChat messages from Mr. Zhang, translated into English, contained repeated vulgar insults, swearing, threats, and references to his past as a member of the Chinese army, Communist Party and police, coupled with warnings that Mr. Miao could not “win” against him. Mr. Zhang did not deny or contextualise these messages at trial. A subcontractor, Mr. Vyacheslav Baltunov, swore that Mr. Zhang twice visited his workshop unannounced, tried to have him continue the kitchen work without Mr. Miao and asked for additional renovations, which the subcontractor refused, affirming that Mr. Miao remained the owner of the kitchen contract. In response to the escalating conflict, Mr. Miao arranged for independent building inspector Mr. André Bérard to inspect the Stonehenge residence on 2 June 2023, document the state of the premises, photograph the work and later issue a report on what had been done. On 3 June 2023, following that inspection, Mr. Miao emailed Mr. Zhang stating that the contract was “resiliated” due to his abuse and threats, thereby unilaterally ending the contract. On 7 June 2023, through counsel, Mr. Zhang served a formal demand letter purporting to resiliate the contract for non-performance under articles 1590 and 1604 C.c.Q., demanding repayment of $29,302 and $3,500 for troubles and inconvenience, and asserting that Mr. Miao’s own resiliation under article 2126 C.c.Q. was null. The letter also complained that Mr. Miao had made allegedly false 911 calls and warned of potential criminal and financial consequences.

Amounts claimed and subsequent contractors
Mr. Zhang sued in the Civil Division of the Court of Québec, ultimately claiming $92,755.46 in total. He sought reimbursement of the $2,000 deposit and of $27,202 allegedly corresponding to work that was incomplete or not done: parts of Phase I items, parts of Phase II, and the full amount paid for the kitchen. He claimed $26,801.60 in extra costs said to be caused by Mr. Miao’s deficient or unfinished work: $11,300 to contractor Mr. Hangxing Zheng for repainting and tile work, and $15,501.60 linked to work by contractor Mr. Zhang Zhibin, supported mainly by a largely Mandarin document that appeared more like a quote than a formal invoice. He added $551.86 for an allegedly stolen kitchen sink, asserting that Mr. Miao had taken it, and $31,200 in lost rent, calculated as eight months of rent at $3,900 per month on the rue Jacqueline-Sicotte property, which was only leased from 1 March 2024. Finally, he sought $5,000 for moral damages and inconvenience. Mr. Zhang had, by then, engaged Mr. Zheng on 10 June 2023 to redo or complete painting and ceramic work after the breakdown with Mr. Miao, and hired Mr. Zhang Zhibin in March 2024 for further tasks he said were left outstanding. In total, Mr. Zhang admitted paying Mr. Miao $41,902: $2,000 as deposit, $15,000 for Phase I, $8,102 for Phase II and $16,800 for the kitchen, all of which Mr. Miao acknowledged receiving.

Expert evidence and treatment of alleged defects
To determine the value and scope of the work completed before resiliation, the court placed substantial weight on the report and testimony of independent building inspector Mr. Bérard. His 24 July 2023 report, based on his 2 June 2023 inspection, listed completed work room by room and assigned a value to it, concluding that the work executed by Mr. Miao was worth $57,940, including $28,300 for the kitchen, which exceeded the $41,902 that Mr. Zhang had paid. Mr. Zhang filed no counter-expertise and gave only a general and imprecise account of what he believed remained incomplete, which the court found insufficient to displace the independent valuation. On quality issues, particularly the paint bubbles and peeling Mr. Zhang later described, the court accepted the evidence that no such defects were observed at the time of inspection and that subsequent issues were more likely caused by high humidity and multiple pre-existing paint layers than by the absence of primer or poor workmanship. Mr. Zheng, who later repainted, testified that he could not attribute the problem specifically to Mr. Miao. The court also noted that Mr. Zhang’s 7 June 2023 demand letter, sent just days after the contractor left the site, did not mention paint bubbles, peeling or any specific malfaçons; it focused instead on incomplete work and repayment of sums paid. This silence reinforced the conclusion that the alleged defects were not established as contractual faults by Mr. Miao.

Court’s legal analysis and outcome
The judge first resolved the question of who had validly ended the contract and on what legal basis. Relying on the abusive and threatening messages, attempts to bypass the contractor with a subcontractor, and the overall aggressiveness documented in the record, the court found that Mr. Zhang had seriously breached his duty of good faith under article 1375 C.c.Q. Jurisprudence cited by the court recognises that loss of trust, persistent incivility and lack of cooperation can constitute a serious motive for a service provider to resiliate under article 2126 C.c.Q. In light of this, the court held that Mr. Miao had a valid serious reason to unilaterally resiliate and did not do so “à contretemps.” The contract therefore ended on 3 June 2023 upon his email, rendering Mr. Zhang’s later attempt at resiliation by demand letter on 7 June 2023 tardy and without effect on the existence of the contract, though Mr. Zhang could still theoretically invoke poor performance if proven. Applying article 2129 C.c.Q., the court compared the $41,902 paid by Mr. Zhang with the $57,940 value of the work found by the independent inspector and concluded that, on the evidence, Mr. Zhang had not overpaid and that there was no proven excess requiring reimbursement. The claims for corrective and completion costs with other contractors failed for lack of clear linkage to the original scope and lack of proof that any such costs were caused by Mr. Miao’s breach. The sink-theft allegation was rejected, especially in light of an email from August 2023 in which Mr. Miao invited Mr. Zhang to retrieve the sink, and the absence of any follow-up by Mr. Zhang. The claim for lost rent on the rue Jacqueline-Sicotte property was dismissed because Mr. Zhang only instructed a broker in early September 2023 and did not show that he could have rented the property earlier even if the Stonehenge house had been ready in late June; moreover, any delay flowing from a justified resiliation by the contractor could not be shifted onto him. For the same reason, the $5,000 for troubles and inconvenience was denied. At trial, Mr. Miao argued that, given the expert’s valuation, he was in fact owed additional sums, but he had not filed a formal reconventional demand or clear conclusions seeking such relief, so the court declined to grant him any affirmative monetary judgment. In the result, the Court of Québec dismissed Mr. Zhang’s entire $92,755.46 claim and held that the successful party was the defendant, Mr. Xiao Miao. The court ordered that he recover his judicial costs, including $1,200 in expert fees for Mr. Bérard’s testimony, with interpreter’s fees for part of the hearing to be shared equally; because the judgment does not quantify the full slate of tariff costs, the exact total monetary amount ultimately recoverable by Mr. Miao cannot be determined from the decision.