Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability turns on whether Taxelco’s accounting error and unauthorized withdrawals constitute extra-contractual fault despite prompt reimbursement of principal.
• Quantum of recoverable loss is narrowed by the prior refund of 559.10 $, leaving only proven consequential bank fees and interest as compensable damage.
• The plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence for claimed accountant’s fees and much of the alleged bank charges prevents recovery of most of the claimed amounts.
• Moral damages for stress, anxiety, and inconvenience are refused because litigation-related inconveniences are not attributable as compensable damages to the opposing party.
• A key evidentiary issue is the lack of proof supporting professional fees and the causal link between the defendant’s mistake and the claimed non-pecuniary harm.
• The court exercises discretion in calculating a reasonable indemnity for lost use of funds by ordering legal interest on a fixed global amount over a defined period.

Facts of the case

The dispute arises from an accounting mistake made by Taxelco, a large transportation company operating a fleet of over 3000 taxis and employing approximately 3000 drivers. The plaintiff, T.A.M.C., is a former taxi owner who maintained a bank account from which Taxelco, by error, withdrew several sums without authorization. These erroneous debits gave rise to a claim framed as a non-contractual or extra-contractual fault (faute extracontractuelle) under Quebec civil law. The plaintiff alleges that as a result of Taxelco’s mistake, multiple categories of damage were suffered. She quantifies her claim at a total of 6 923.93 $, broken down as follows: 559.10 $ for money withdrawn without right; 2 500.00 $ in accountant’s fees; 150.00 $ in bank charges; 3 000.00 $ as moral damages for “troubles et inconvénients, stress, perte de sommeil et anxiété”; 415.00 $ in legal fees; and 303.00 $ in court costs. The defendant, Taxelco, acknowledges from the outset that it committed an error in its accounting, which resulted in unauthorized or mistaken withdrawals from the plaintiff’s bank account. It does not attempt to justify the error by the scale of its operations but explains that the size of its fleet and the number of drivers created particular administrative and accounting circumstances. Taxelco argues that once notified of the mistake on 20 November 2023, it acted promptly to correct it. It credits back the plaintiff’s account and reimburses the capital sum of 559.10 $ by January 2024. However, in doing so, the defendant only repays the principal that had been withdrawn, and does not pay any interest or additional compensation for the period during which the funds were out of the plaintiff’s possession. This sets the stage for the dispute over what additional sums, if any, are recoverable as damages.

Legal framework and issues before the court

The case is heard in the Civil Division, Small Claims Division, of the Court of Québec. The judge notes that under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, three key elements: fault, damage, and the causal link between the fault and the alleged damage. While Taxelco admits fault in the form of accounting errors that led to unauthorized withdrawals, the central legal issues shift to the existence and proof of compensable damages beyond what has already been reimbursed. The claim raises questions about which categories of claimed loss are legally recoverable and sufficiently proven in evidence, particularly professional fees, bank charges, moral damages, and legal costs. It also engages the distinction, recognized in Quebec case law, between ordinary inconveniences of litigation (which are generally not compensable) and autonomous, compensable moral or financial harm directly caused by the defendant’s fault. The court must also determine the appropriate way to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of use of her money during the period when the unauthorized withdrawals remained outstanding. This leads to the question of how to calculate interest and whether to award a specific interest indemnity to reasonably compensate for the temporary deprivation of funds.

Assessment of the plaintiff’s claimed heads of damage

The judge approaches each category of claimed damages separately. As to the 559.10 $ allegedly withdrawn without right, the court finds that this amount cannot be awarded again because it has already been reimbursed by Taxelco. Since the principal has been repaid, there is no remaining loss under that specific heading. On the claimed accountant’s fees of 2 500.00 $, the court identifies a complete absence of supporting evidence. The plaintiff does not file invoices, receipts, or any other proof that an accountant was actually retained and paid for work specifically attributable to Taxelco’s wrongful withdrawals. Because the small claims process still requires proof on balance of probabilities and the evidentiary record is silent or insufficient on this point, the court rejects this portion of the claim. The bank charges form another head of claimed loss. While the plaintiff seeks 150.00 $ in bank fees, the judge closely examines the documentary evidence filed, including bank statements marked as exhibits P-1 and P-2. On the basis of those statements, the court recognizes only 37.60 $ in proven bank charges directly linked to the unauthorized withdrawals and treats that amount as recoverable. The remainder of the claimed 150.00 $ is not supported by adequate proof or cannot be sufficiently tied to the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Moral damages and litigation-related inconveniences

The plaintiff also seeks 3 000.00 $ in moral damages, citing trouble, inconvenience, stress, loss of sleep, and anxiety. The court declines to award these damages. It emphasises that the inconveniences associated with bringing legal proceedings and preparing a case—time, stress, and effort implicit in litigation—are not compensable damages that can be imputed to the other party. In reaching this conclusion, the court refers to established authorities, including Supreme Court and Quebec case law, that draw a line between compensable non-pecuniary harm and the ordinary burdens of participating in the legal process. The judge further notes that the claimed moral injury is not adequately substantiated by specific evidence demonstrating a distinct, quantifiable non-pecuniary harm causally linked to the defendant’s fault, beyond the ordinary frustrations of resolving a dispute. In a similar vein, the court refuses to grant the claimed 415.00 $ in lawyer’s fees. In small claims, parties typically represent themselves, and where public policy and case law treat each side’s own legal fees as part of the normal cost of asserting or defending rights, those fees are generally not recoverable as compensatory damages from the opposing party. The precedent cited by the court affirms that legal fees are not ordinarily shifted in this fashion and thus cannot form part of recoverable extra-contractual damages.

Interest, loss of use of funds, and court costs

Although the principal of 559.10 $ has already been repaid, the court recognizes that the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the loss of use of her money during the period when it was wrongfully withdrawn. To address this, the judge orders Taxelco to pay legal interest on a global amount of 782.74 $—a figure that encompasses the sums withdrawn without right and related amounts—over a defined period from 6 October 2023 to 6 February 2024. This is expressly framed as a reasonable form of indemnification for the temporary deprivation and inconvenience caused by the unauthorized withdrawals. In addition, the court awards the plaintiff reimbursement of her court costs, fixed at 303.00 $. These judicial costs are recoverable as part of the judgment and are distinct from non-recoverable legal (lawyer’s) fees. The judgment further orders that legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec run on the awarded sums (the 37.60 $ and the interest indemnity on 782.74 $) from 1 February 2024 until full payment. However, the decision does not compute or state the exact monetary value of these interest components; they depend on the applicable legal interest rate and the elapsed time until payment.

Outcome and overall result

In the result, the Court of Québec allows the action in part. The plaintiff, T.A.M.C., is the successful party, but only to a limited extent. The court rejects her claim to re-recover the 559.10 $ already reimbursed, denies the unproven accountant’s fees and most of the bank charges, and refuses the claims for moral damages and lawyer’s fees as non-recoverable in the circumstances. It grants her 37.60 $ in proven bank charges and 303.00 $ representing court costs, for a clearly quantified principal total of 340.60 $. In addition, the court orders Taxelco to pay legal interest on 782.74 $ from 6 October 2023 to 6 February 2024 as compensation for the loss of use of funds, together with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. on the awarded sums from 1 February 2024 until full payment. Because the judgment does not fix the exact interest figures, the precise final total in favour of T.A.M.C. cannot be determined from the text alone, but the principal components of the award are clearly established at 340.60 $, plus interest and statutory indemnity to be calculated according to law.