Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central dispute over a services contract for engineering and construction plans to stabilize a residential extension.
• Whether CWT Consultants fulfilled its contractual obligation to deliver usable, city-approvable structural plans permitting issuance of a construction permit.
• Impact of unclear fee estimates and unsigned service proposal on CWT’s claim for additional professional fees and extras.
• Significance of CWT’s failure to disclose the need for geotechnical studies and its principal engineer’s limitation of practice by the professional order.
• Evidentiary weight of email correspondence showing repeated unanswered questions from the client and plans that did not satisfy the City of Montréal’s permit requirements.
• Client’s right under the Civil Code of Québec to refuse payment and seek reimbursement where services rendered are unusable and do not achieve the agreed purpose.

Background and parties

This case arises from a dispute between 7632568 Canada inc., operating under the name CWT Consultants (CWT), and homeowner Sophie Deraspe regarding engineering services for foundation and structural work on the extension of her Montréal property. CWT is owned by civil engineer Claude Tollett, who specializes in structural engineering. The matter was heard in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec. CWT acted as plaintiff on the main claim, seeking unpaid professional fees, while Ms. Deraspe filed a counterclaim seeking reimbursement of fees already paid.

Engagement for structural and foundation work

In September 2022, Ms. Deraspe contacted CWT because she was planning stabilization works for the rear extension of her home in Montréal. The purpose was to obtain professional advice and engineering plans that would allow an entrepreneur to carry out the consolidation works and secure a construction permit from the City of Montréal. A written “offer of services” dated 12 September 2022 set out four main components: management and follow-up of works on a time budget basis; a preliminary visit and survey of the extension; drawings of foundations and ground floor including reinforcement of footings; and a letter of attestation or proxy. The total provisional budget was stated at $4,750 before taxes, although the line items actually added up to $4,450, creating a discrepancy that immediately concerned the client. Despite this written proposal, the offer was never signed. According to her testimony, Ms. Deraspe agreed only to pay an initial amount of $500–$550 for a preliminary visit and basic plan, to understand the possible solutions and the “modus operandi” before committing to more detailed and costly drawings. CWT acknowledged that the written offer was never executed but maintained that there was an understanding it would proceed with drawings and plans for reinforcement of the extension’s foundations after the first visit.

Preliminary visit, expectations, and email exchanges

On 9 September 2022, before the formal proposal, Ms. Deraspe emailed Mr. Tollett asking for his rates and a breakdown of the steps in his services. He replied the same day that a first visit and “plan de base” would cost about $500–$550, and that full plans and permit drawings, consisting of three or four plans, would cost about $2,400 more, with possible supplements to be assessed on site. This informed her expectation that she would pay initially for a preliminary visit and basic plan, then consider further detailed plans after understanding the proposed solution. On 12 September 2022, after receiving the more formal service agreement, she wrote back expressing surprise that the price in the agreement did not match what had been proposed by email. She reiterated that she wanted a first paid visit and a “plan de base,” and asked for clarification on what that basic plan included and how the higher amount in the agreement was justified. Instead of a substantive answer from the engineer himself, only a brief email from his spouse, Carol Hume, was sent, which did not really address her questions or the pricing discrepancy. Nevertheless, a first on-site meeting took place on 13 September 2022, where Ms. Deraspe provided architectural plans of her home. On 22 September 2022, she followed up by email to ask whether he had everything needed to complete the preliminary plan and invited him to contact her with any questions. The next day, Mr. Tollett indicated he had sufficient information and that drawings to support the foundations would be ready the following week. She again asked to speak with him before he advanced to additional drawings, stressing her wish to understand what he would be proposing in the plans.

Delivery of initial sketches and growing communication issues

On 26 September 2022, Mr. Tollett sent Ms. Deraspe a document described as a sketch of cuts and sections to help her understand the scope of foundation work. Following this, she made several attempts to obtain verbal explanations and responses to her technical questions. Her emails show she wanted clarity on the nature of the proposed solution before incurring further costs. On 4 October 2022, instead of providing detailed explanations first, CWT quoted a budget of $3,500 before tax for “the drawings,” asking her to confirm if this was acceptable. She responded the same day, stating she agreed with the price while also posing more questions about the proposed work. On 13 October 2022, she wrote again asking whether CWT planned to send her plans suitable for submission to contractors in the near term. He replied the same day stating he intended to send them the following day.

Plans transmitted and billing dispute

On 21 October 2022, CWT finally sent plans to Ms. Deraspe. The same day, she replied with many technical questions and asked to speak with him by phone, signalling that she did not understand several details. Despite this, CWT went ahead and, on 8 November 2022, issued an invoice for $4,865.34. This invoice closely mirrored the original, unaccepted service offer of 12 September rather than the actual course of dealings and email exchanges. It included $1,700 for “gestion et concept” (management and concept), even though there was no evidence that such management services had been performed, plus $2,109.25 for drawings of foundations and ground floor with reinforcement of footings, and an additional $260 for waterproofing and transportation costs. Faced with this bill, Ms. Deraspe was understandably skeptical. She still lacked clear explanations about the plans, and her emails demonstrate that she had not received adequate answers. On 25 November, she wrote again because the plans contained numerous annotations she did not understand. Mr. Tollett eventually replied with a very brief description of the work contemplated, not sufficient to resolve her concerns.

Emergence of geotechnical requirements and pieux (piles)

In further communications, Ms. Deraspe asked whether another engineer would be needed, as the plans referred to a geotechnical study that had never previously been discussed. On 7 December, Mr. Tollett finally acknowledged that a specialized geotechnical firm would indeed have to be retained. This information came late in the process and was a significant element that should have been disclosed at the contracting stage, particularly because it changed the cost and complexity of the project. On 9 December, she raised another crucial point: given the unstable soil, did the project not require piles (pieux) to prevent movement of the house? On 13 December, she informed him that her chosen contractor believed piles were necessary to guarantee the work. His response was confusing, both in writing and at trial, and did not clearly justify why plans with piles had not been prepared. Increasingly frustrated, she asked that he communicate directly with her contractor.

Problems obtaining a construction permit and engineer’s practice limitation

Time passed without meaningful follow-up from CWT. On 18 January, her contractor, Marc-André Caron, informed her that the City of Montréal required engineering plans signed by an engineer to issue a building permit. She contacted CWT again through his spouse, who acted as an intermediary and referenced new requirements such as surveys to measure soil settlement, involving yet another specialized firm—again, information that had never been clearly explained at the outset. Meanwhile, on 7 February 2023, Ms. Deraspe learned that Mr. Tollett’s right to practice was limited by the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec with respect to foundation work. He admitted in an email that another engineer would have to sign the plans and recognised this limitation. This restriction had never been disclosed to her when she engaged his services, even though it directly affected his ability to deliver valid, signable foundation plans for the project.

Revised plans, contractor’s objections, and CWT’s silence

Despite the ongoing uncertainty, CWT continued to press for payment. On 13 February, Mr. Tollett wrote that additional time would have to be billed. She responded that payment would be possible once approved plans had been delivered. CWT sent revised plans on 16 February. That same day, her contractor reviewed them and concluded that the plans, even as revised, were not suitable to carry out the works. In an email, he set out in detail why the drawings could not lead to a safe and proper execution of the project, including the absence of piles in line with what the city and the contractor considered necessary for the unstable ground. This email was forwarded to CWT via Réno-Assistance. After that, CWT stopped communicating.

Engagement of a new engineer and completion of the works

Having lost confidence in CWT and unable to secure a permit or a workable solution on the basis of its drawings, Ms. Deraspe retained a different engineering professional. The new engineer’s plans included piles, were approved by the City of Montréal, and allowed her contractor to perform the stabilization works as intended. In practice, this meant that the work product provided by CWT—its plans and sketches—had no practical utility: they did not secure a building permit, did not guide the contractor, and did not result in the completion of the extension stabilization.

Legal framework under the Civil Code of Québec

The court applied the general rules of contractual liability and contracts for services under the Civil Code of Québec. Article 1458 C.c.Q. establishes that a party must honor its contractual undertakings and is responsible for the damage caused by failing to do so. The relationship between CWT and Ms. Deraspe was characterized as a contract of services under article 2098 C.c.Q., under which a service provider undertakes to perform a material or intellectual work or provide a service for a price to be paid by the client. Article 2099 C.c.Q. gives the service provider freedom in choosing how to execute the contract, but this is balanced by article 2100 C.c.Q., which requires the provider to act in the best interests of the client, with prudence and diligence, in accordance with professional standards, and to ensure that the work delivered complies with the contract. On pricing, articles 2106 to 2108 C.c.Q. state that the price may be fixed by contract, usage, law, or based on the value of work performed and require the service provider, when an estimate is given, to justify any increase and, at the client’s request, to report on the progress of work, services rendered, and expenses incurred. Article 2111 C.c.Q. provides that the client need not pay before receiving the work or services. Finally, articles 2125 and 2129 C.c.Q. address unilateral termination by the client, who then must pay only the actual costs, value of work executed, and any supplied materials up to the time of termination.

Burden of proof and evidentiary assessment

Under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q., the party advancing a claim bears the burden of proving essential facts on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, CWT, as plaintiff, had to prove not only that a contract for services was formed and that fees were due, but that it fulfilled its contractual obligations and that Ms. Deraspe was in breach by not paying the balance. If CWT failed in that task, the burden would shift to Ms. Deraspe on her counterclaim to prove that the services she had already paid for were not worth the amount charged and that she was entitled to reimbursement. The judge placed significant weight on the documentary record, especially the parties’ detailed email exchanges over time. These emails demonstrated that Ms. Deraspe repeatedly sought clarification and workable plans, while CWT provided incomplete responses. They also showed that the invoice reflected a service structure never accepted by her and that no proper explanation was given for substantial service items such as “management and concept.”

Findings on CWT’s performance and breach

The court concluded that CWT did not prove, on a preponderant basis, that it had performed its obligations toward Ms. Deraspe. Its plans were never approved by the City of Montréal and did not permit execution of the project. A key element was that CWT, as an expert, should have ensured that the plans would allow both a building permit and construction of the intended work. The plans omitted piles, even though the city and the contractor indicated they were necessary for this type of ground condition, and CWT did not provide a convincing technical justification for this decision. Furthermore, the court considered the late disclosure of the need for a geotechnical firm and the engineer’s practice limitation. The reference to geotechnical studies appeared only in the plans, not in the initial offer or early discussions, leaving the client unaware of an important dimension of the project. The judge viewed the failure to clearly inform her about the limitation on his right to sign foundation plans as particularly troubling. Once that limitation came into force, CWT practically ceased direct communication and relied on the spouse as a go-between, and another engineer had to sign any plans. All of this undermined CWT’s claim that it had delivered what was contractually promised. The court determined that CWT was obliged to supply conforming plans that would lead to a construction permit and realizable work. It did not do so, despite multiple opportunities from the client.

Rejection of CWT’s claim for fees and extras

Because CWT had not met its contractual obligations, it could not insist on payment of the unpaid portion of its invoice or claim additional sums for interest, extra time spent on legal proceedings, or related amounts. The judge found that parts of the invoice, such as the “management and concept” component, were unsupported by evidence of actual services. Moreover, under article 2111 C.c.Q., the client is not bound to pay for services that have not been properly rendered. Since the delivered plans were unusable for their intended purpose, there was no legal basis for recovering the claimed balance or extras. CWT’s action was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Outcome of the counterclaim and monetary award

Turning to the counterclaim, the court held that, because CWT had not performed its obligations, Ms. Deraspe was entitled to reimbursement of the $2,000 she had already paid. The plans had no practical value: they did not support a permit application, did not satisfy the city’s requirements, and did not guide the actual construction work, which was ultimately done on the basis of entirely new plans from a different engineer. In these circumstances, and applying the Civil Code provisions on service contracts and payment only upon receipt of usable work, the counterclaim was well-founded. The Court of Québec therefore rejected CWT’s main claim, allowed Ms. Deraspe’s counterclaim, and ordered 7632568 Canada inc. (CWT Consultants) to pay her $2,000, together with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from the date of service of the counterclaim, plus $112 in court costs. In practical terms, the successful party is Ms. Deraspe, and the quantified principal award in her favour is a total of $2,112, with further interest and indemnity to be calculated according to statutory rules; the exact final amount including accrued interest cannot be determined from the judgment alone.