Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of a card issuer’s obligation to process chargeback requests under Quebec consumer protection law when the banking relationship has been terminated.
• Whether a plaintiff who has not paid the disputed credit card charges can qualify as the holder of a “créance” required to bring a claim in the Small Claims Division.
• Sufficiency of the consumer’s evidence to prove non-delivery of goods where prior disputes showed delivery to the address provided by the cardholder.
• Evidentiary burden on a claimant to substantiate alleged damage to credit score and psychological stress, beyond general assertions and generic publications.
• Impact of a defendant’s default of appearance on the plaintiff’s continuing burden of proof in small claims proceedings.
• Effect of dismissing the claim “sans frais” while expressly reserving the consumer’s rights if later sued for recovery of the credit card balance.

Facts of the case
Antoine Fortune, a consumer and credit card holder, brought a small claims action before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, against CIBC. He claimed that CIBC wrongfully refused to process a chargeback (“rétrofacturation”) for certain disputed credit card transactions. The dispute centred on purchases made on 9 March 2025 totaling CAD 3,565.56 for various items that Fortune said he never received. He alleged that because CIBC decided to end its business relationship with him, he could no longer submit transaction disputes that might lead to chargebacks under the consumer protection framework. Fortune relied on the chargeback mechanism contemplated by the Quebec Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC), which allows a consumer to seek reimbursement through the card issuer where a merchant fails to refund in specified situations. He also sought an additional CAD 2,500 in damages for stress, time lost, and alleged negative impact on his credit record. The case proceeded by default because CIBC did not respond to the claim or otherwise participate in the proceedings. The court confirmed that service of the claim had been properly made on CIBC’s head office by certified mail, clearing the way for Fortune to present his evidence despite the defendant’s absence.

Background dealings and complaint history
As context, Fortune produced a written response dated 8 July 2025 from CIBC’s client complaint review office. In that letter, CIBC noted that since opening his credit card account in June 2024, Fortune had attempted approximately 50 disputes of various transactions at another internal escalation level. The bank stated that this pattern of activity contributed to borrowing beyond the card’s credit limit, which led CIBC Visa to restrict the card. CIBC further indicated that information received from the merchants regarding earlier disputed transactions showed that the disputed goods had in fact been delivered to the address provided by Fortune. This complaint history framed CIBC’s position that prior challenges had not been valid and illustrated why the bank had concerns about the continued relationship and about the volume and nature of the disputes.

Claim for chargeback and unpaid balance
At the hearing, Fortune acknowledged that he had not paid CIBC the amounts he regarded as unjustified and for which he was seeking chargebacks. In substance, he wanted the court to compel the bank to reverse those charges on his card, effectively treating the underlying transactions as if the goods had never been delivered or the merchant had defaulted. In Quebec small claims procedure, however, the claimant must be the holder of a “créance” (a claim or receivable) within the meaning of article 536 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the action must not operate to produce an unjust enrichment. The court viewed this unpaid status as central to determining whether Fortune met the jurisdictional and substantive requirements to pursue his claim in the Small Claims Division, because he was effectively seeking relief on amounts he had never actually paid to the card issuer.

Alleged damage to credit and moral prejudice
In addition to the chargeback-related demand, Fortune sought CAD 2,500 for stress, wasted time, and the alleged impact on his credit file. To support this, he produced a collection agency letter dated 9 July 2025, showing that the unpaid balance had been sent to collections, and a general publication about credit scoring and its importance. However, he provided no specific evidence about his own credit report, no documentation of an actual drop in score, and no concrete proof connecting any particular adverse credit consequence to CIBC’s refusal to process the chargeback. The court was thus left with general assertions about possible credit harm, unsupported by individualized financial or credit documentation.

Court’s analysis on burden of proof and standing
Even though CIBC was in default and did not appear, the court emphasized that a plaintiff in small claims still carries the burden of proof. The judge concluded that Fortune failed to discharge that burden for two key reasons. First, by admitting that he had not paid the amounts on his card for which he sought chargebacks, he was not the holder of a “créance” as required by article 536 C.C.P. for small claims jurisdiction. The court underscored that such a claim cannot be used as a vehicle to obtain an enrichment in circumstances where the claimant has not actually disbursed the sums in issue. Second, on the alleged negative impact on his credit file, the court noted that even if Fortune’s concerns were assumed to be valid in principle, he had submitted no objective evidence to show real damage; mere possibilities and generic materials about credit scores were insufficient to establish actual harm. Thus, both the principal monetary claim and the accompanying moral and credit-related damages lacked adequate evidentiary support.

Ruling and overall outcome
Because Fortune did not meet his evidentiary burden, the Court of Québec dismissed his action. The court rejected the entire claim “without costs,” expressly noting that CIBC, having not appeared, would not recover legal costs from the proceeding. At the same time, the judge was careful to state that the decision did not address the substantive merits of Fortune’s underlying arguments regarding the disputed transactions and chargebacks. To preserve procedural fairness, the court expressly reserved Fortune’s rights to raise his defences and arguments if CIBC later sues him to recover the outstanding balance on the credit card for the same amounts that were the subject of his chargeback requests. In practical terms, CIBC emerged as the successful party, with Fortune’s claims for CAD 3,565.56 in chargeback and CAD 2,500 in additional damages entirely dismissed, and no monetary award or costs granted to either side; the total amount ordered in favour of the successful party was therefore CAD 0.