Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over a paid educational and tutoring contract for trading, including whether Daytrader Canada delivered the agreed services in accordance with the written terms.
• Significance of the contractual cancellation and refund provisions (clause 17) limiting reimbursement rights after short, specified time periods for online content, USB materials, and tutoring services.
• Assessment of whether alleged promises about evening practical training created additional obligations beyond the written contract and whether these were breached.
• Application of the burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q., requiring Bui to establish fault, damages, and causation on a balance of probabilities.
• Evaluation of Daytrader’s duty as a service provider under article 2100 C.c.Q. to act prudently, diligently, and in accordance with the “rules of their art” in providing training and coaching.
• Quantification of recoverable amounts limited to the unused portion of practical training (459.90 $) plus judicial costs, where the rest of the 15 000 $ damages claim was not proven.

Factual background

Hanh Bui entered into a commercial relationship with Daytrader Canada by signing, in October 2023, a “Contrat d’achat de matériel éducatif V1.01” for training in stock and securities trading and related tutoring services. The price of the package was 12 900 $, which Bui fully financed through a loan from Fairstone Financière inc., a lender to which he had been referred by Daytrader. The contract included educational material, access to recorded and live training sessions, and personalized coaching blocks. On 8 November 2023, a USB key was delivered to Bui containing the training content and material, which he could consult at any time. The program also gave him ongoing access to recorded practical sessions and the ability to book coaching appointments, largely during business hours.

Allegations by the claimant

Bui maintained that Daytrader had promised not just theoretical education but practical trading training and accompaniment, including live “laboratoires” or practice sessions that he could attend during the evening because he worked until 16:00 on weekdays. According to him, Daytrader represented that the practical training could be done in the evenings, but in practice these commitments were not honored, leaving him unable to benefit from the core practical component of the program due to his work schedule. By January 2024, Bui demanded a full refund of the 12 900 $ he had paid, but Daytrader refused. In a letter dated 11 February 2024, Bui emphasized that, up to that point, he was not making money from trading and that there was no guarantee he would generate sufficient profits to repay the 12 900 $ loan, which he described as a heavy debt. He then sent a formal demand letter on 13 February 2024 and subsequently filed a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, seeking 15 000 $ in damages (after amendment) on the basis that services had not been rendered despite the contract and payment.

Defence and evidence of services rendered

Daytrader contested the claim, pointing first to clause 17 of the contract, which sets out a detailed regime for cancellation and refunds. For online content accessible through the website, clause 17 A grants a period of seven clear days to cancel for a full refund less a 10% administrative fee, after which no refund is available. For services delivered on USB keys, clause 17 B provides a 72-hour period to cancel for a refund, again subject to a 10% administrative fee, and conditioned on return of the USB key; beyond that deadline, no refund is made. Clause 17 C addresses requests for replacement of a defective USB key, again within 72 hours. Clause 17 D governs tutoring services sold in hour-block packages and allows cancellation before use for a refund (less 10% fees), or partial reimbursement of unused tutoring hours using a recalculation based on the real value of hours if sold individually, plus the same 10% administrative deduction. Clause 17 E specifies that any free added services included in the packages are not refundable. Relying on this clause, Daytrader argued that Bui’s refund request came long after the strict time limits for cancellation and did not meet the contractual conditions for reimbursement. Daytrader also led evidence through its sales and customer service director, Michel Bibeau, to the effect that the services and training were in fact delivered in accordance with the contract. The company asserted that all practical training sessions were recorded and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to its students, including Bui, through its platform. It further showed that Bui had used approximately 75% of his allotted personalized coaching time, mostly during regular office hours, and still had an unused practical-training component valued at 459,90 $ at the time of the hearing. Daytrader underlined that the trading education program did not include any guarantee of profits or earnings in the markets and insisted that it never promised specific returns, given the inherent volatility of securities trading.

Legal framework and burden of proof

The Court recalled the foundational provisions of the Civil Code of Québec on the burden of proof in civil matters. Under article 2803 C.c.Q., a party who wishes to assert a right must prove the facts that support that right, and any party claiming that a right is null, modified, or extinguished must prove the supporting facts. Article 2804 C.c.Q. confirms that proof is sufficient when it makes the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law demands a stronger standard. These principles apply equally in an action for damages, where the plaintiff must prove three elements: the defendant’s fault, the damages suffered, and the causal link between the fault and the damages. The Court also applied the contractual liability regime under articles 2098 and following, particularly article 2100 C.c.Q., which requires service providers to act in the best interest of their client, with prudence and diligence, in accordance with professional practices and the rules of their art, and to ensure that their services conform to the contract. Where an obligation of result exists, a provider may escape liability only by proving force majeure.

Application to the facts and assessment of fault

In applying this legal framework, the Court examined whether Bui had demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that Daytrader failed to provide the contracted services or otherwise breached its contractual or legal duties. The contractual evidence, including the signed agreement and clause 17, showed a precise allocation of rights to cancel and obtain refunds and a clear structure for the delivery of educational content, USB-based materials, and tutoring hours. The factual record, reinforced by Daytrader’s internal documentation and testimony, indicated that the promised content had been delivered: Bui received the USB key containing the relevant educational material, had access to recorded and live training sessions, and made use of a significant portion of his coaching time. The Court accepted Daytrader’s position that practical training sessions were continuously available in recorded form, enabling Bui to review them in the evenings, and that he could ask questions via the Slack communication channel or through the comment functions of the training modules. In light of this evidence, the Court concluded that Bui had not met his evidentiary burden to establish that Daytrader committed a fault or that the services were not rendered in accordance with professional standards. The Court specifically found that, with one limited exception, the services were provided as agreed and that the claim for a complete refund of 12 900 $ (amended to 15 000 $ in overall damages) was not supported by the proof.

Outcome and monetary consequences

Although it rejected the bulk of Bui’s claim, the Court acknowledged an admitted shortfall: a portion of the practical training that Bui had paid for but had not used, valued at 459,90 $. Daytrader recognized during the hearing that this amount corresponded to unused course value and made an offer accordingly. On that basis, the Court held Daytrader liable only for that unused component and ordered it to pay Bui 459,90 $ in principal. In addition, the Court granted interest at the legal rate, together with the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q., running from 13 February 2024, the date of the formal demand letter. The Court also awarded Bui his judicial costs in the amount of 364 $ corresponding to the court stamp. In sum, the successful party is the plaintiff, Hanh Bui, who obtained a monetary award made up of 459,90 $ for the unused training, plus 364 $ in court costs, for a fixed total of 823,90 $, to which must be added legal interest and the statutory additional indemnity, whose exact value cannot be determined from the judgment alone.