Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and nature of the canine training agreements (initial education contract and subsequent “Maître-Chien K9” contract) forming a single overall training arrangement of 1,500 hours.
• Proof that the plaintiff had only received 575 hours of training when she exercised her right to unilaterally terminate (résilier) the contracts in March 2024.
• Application of articles 2125 and 2129 of the Civil Code of Québec to determine the parties’ respective obligations upon termination, including refund of advances for services not rendered.
• Compliance of the defendant’s contracting and invoicing practices with the Consumer Protection Act (LPC), notably article 188s and the structure of a “hybrid” contract that was difficult for the consumer to understand.
• Determination, under article 195 LPC, of what the defendant could legally retain (value of services actually rendered) versus what had to be refunded, and whether any contractual or statutory penalty applied.
• Entitlement of the plaintiff to reimbursement of prepaid amounts (9,460.74 $), legal interest, additional indemnity (art. 1619 C.c.Q.), and judicial costs (213 $), in light of the defendant’s non-compliance with the LPC and C.C.Q.

Background and contractual framework

The dispute arises from two successive training contracts entered into between the plaintiff, Nathalie Laplante, and the defendant, La Brigade Canine Inc., a company offering canine training and related services. The first contract concerned a general canine education course, while the second was for a “Maître-Chien K9” training program. Although executed as two separate written agreements (referred to as exhibits P-6 and P-8), the Court finds that, in substance, they formed a single, unified contractual relationship under which the plaintiff was to receive a total of 1,500 hours of training. The financial structure of the arrangement required the plaintiff to pay substantial sums in advance. Over time, she paid more than 15,000 $ prior to the termination of the contracts. The Court highlights that the defendant’s practice of replacing one contract with another and creating what the judge describes as a hybrid contract—without clear delineation of services and billing—rendered the contractual relationship difficult, if not nearly impossible, for a consumer to understand. This lack of clarity is assessed in light of the obligations imposed on merchants by the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (Loi sur la protection du consommateur, or LPC).

Termination of the contracts and services actually rendered

By March 2024, the contractual relationship had broken down from the plaintiff’s perspective, and she chose to exercise her right to terminate (résilier) the contracts. At that point, she had received only 575 hours of training out of the 1,500 hours initially contemplated. This factual element is critical: the Court must compare the portion of the services actually performed with the total scope of the contract, and then assess what part of the advance payments corresponded to completed work versus unearned amounts for services never provided. The plaintiff supported her claim with detailed documentary evidence and her own testimony, which the Court found credible. Exhibits P-1 to P-13 were filed, including the formal notice sent on 25 March 2024 and documentation of payments and contractual terms. On the strength of this evidence, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has indeed paid for all of the services that were actually rendered before termination and that the remaining amount she seeks corresponds to the unearned portion of the prepaid fees.

Statutory framework: Civil Code of Québec

From a legal standpoint, the Court applies the regime of contracts for services under the Civil Code of Québec. Article 2125 C.C.Q. provides that the client (here, the plaintiff) may unilaterally terminate a contract for services even after performance has begun. Article 2129 C.C.Q. sets out the correlative financial consequences: upon termination, the client must pay the contractor or service provider the value of the work actually performed and the expenses incurred, in proportion to the agreed price. Conversely, the contractor must refund any advance payments that exceed what has been earned. These provisions structure the Court’s analysis: since the plaintiff terminated after partially receiving services, she remains liable only for the value of the 575 hours already delivered. As she had prepaid more than that value, the defendant became obligated to return the excess.

Consumer protection issues and the LPC provisions

In addition to the Civil Code, the Court relies on key provisions of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (LPC), reflecting the consumer nature of the transaction. The judge expressly notes that the defendant’s approach to contracting—substituting one contract with another and cobbling together a hybrid arrangement without clear, accessible billing—does not comply with article 188s LPC. This failure contributes to the complexity and opacity of the contractual relationship from the consumer’s standpoint. The Court then moves to the specific monetary rules governing termination of service contracts. Article 195 LPC stipulates that when a consumer terminates after the merchant has begun performance, the merchant is only entitled to two types of amounts: (a) the price of the services actually provided, calculated at the hourly, daily, or weekly rate stipulated in the contract; and (b) a penalty equal to the lesser of 50 $ or 10% of the price of the services not yet provided. Article 196 LPC requires the merchant to remit to the consumer, within 10 days of termination, any amount that must be refunded. The Court concludes that the defendant failed to comply with these statutory obligations, both in its contracting practices and in its refusal to reimburse the plaintiff after receiving the formal notice. Finally, the judge invokes article 272 LPC and decides not to apply the 50 $ penalty allowed under article 195 LPC, effectively removing any claim the merchant might have had to retain that additional amount.

Assessment of the financial consequences

Having established both the factual basis and the applicable legal framework, the Court calculates the sums owing between the parties. The plaintiff claimed 9,460.74 $, representing the value of the portion of the training she paid for in advance but did not receive. On the evidence presented, the Court is satisfied that she has already covered the cost of the 575 hours of training actually rendered before termination and that the claimed amount corresponds to the unearned balance. Under articles 2125 and 2129 C.C.Q., together with article 195 LPC, the merchant is not entitled to keep payments for services never delivered, apart from the strictly limited penalty regime that the Court ultimately declines to apply in this case. Article 196 LPC further obliges the defendant to refund the amounts due within ten days of termination, a requirement that was not met. Consequently, the Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled not only to the reimbursement of 9,460.74 $ but also to associated civil law monetary consequences: legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.C.Q. running from 25 March 2024, the date of the formal notice.

Ruling and outcome

In its dispositive section, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, allows the plaintiff’s claim in full. The judge orders La Brigade Canine Inc. to pay Nathalie Laplante the principal sum of 9,460.74 $, representing the value of prepaid training services not rendered, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec from 25 March 2024, as well as judicial costs of 213 $. The total minimum quantified monetary recovery in favor of the successful party thus comes to 9,673.74 $ (9,460.74 $ in principal plus 213 $ in costs), with the precise final amount exceeding this figure once legal interest and the additional indemnity are calculated; the judgment does not state an exact final total for those time-dependent amounts.