Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicability of Québec consumer protection law (L.p.c.) to sports league registration contracts for children’s dek hockey.
• Sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the payments made and the games not provided due to COVID-19 suspensions.
• Legal right of the consumer to cancel service contracts (season registrations) mid-season and seek reimbursement for unperformed services.
• Effect of the defendant’s default of appearance and the continuing burden on the plaintiff to meet ordinary rules of evidence.
• Determination of the reimbursable amounts for partially completed and entirely cancelled seasons and the start date for legal interest.
• Allocation of legal costs and pre-litigation expenses (demand letter and court fees) in favour of the successful small claims party.

Facts of the case

Madame Mélanie Berthelot entered into consumer contracts with 9310-4263 Québec inc., operating under the name Ligue développement Dek Hockey (LDDH), to enroll her two children in organized dek hockey. The first contract concerned the winter–spring 2020 season, which was supposed to include 24 games. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the league suspended the season around March 2020, after only 10 of the 24 scheduled games had been played, leaving 14 games unfulfilled. Later, in August 2020, Ms. Berthelot registered her children for the autumn 2020 season and asked LDDH to credit or deduct from the new registration fee the portion of the winter–spring season that had not been delivered. LDDH refused this request. Ms. Berthelot nonetheless paid the full fee for the autumn 2020 season, but that season never took place, as it was again postponed due to the pandemic. In August 2021, Ms. Berthelot sent an email cancelling her children’s registrations and asking LDDH to reimburse her for the unused portions of the seasons. LDDH declined, stating that its priority was first to reschedule and replay the cancelled games and that only later would it analyze potential refunds.

Procedural history and evidence

The dispute was brought before the Cour du Québec, Small Claims Division, where Ms. Berthelot claimed a refund of her registration fees. Despite being duly summoned, LDDH did not appear at the hearing, and the court allowed Ms. Berthelot to proceed by default. Even in the defendant’s absence, the judge emphasized that a small claims plaintiff must still prove the claim on a balance of probabilities under the ordinary rules of evidence. The court relied on the Civil Code of Québec provisions on the burden and standard of proof, requiring Ms. Berthelot to adduce clear and convincing evidence that made her claim more likely than not. The material before the court included proof of payment for the winter–spring 2020 season, evidence that only 10 of the 24 games were played, proof of full payment for the autumn 2020 season, and her subsequent cancellation and demand for reimbursement. The judge also considered the formal demand letter Ms. Berthelot sent in February 2022, in which she claimed a specific sum of 797.50 dollars as reimbursement of the unused services.

Legal framework and characterization of the contracts

The judge found that each registration contract between Ms. Berthelot and LDDH was governed by Québec’s consumer protection regime, the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (L.p.c.), because these were service contracts entered into by a consumer and a professional merchant. In addition to the L.p.c., the court applied relevant provisions of the Civil Code of Québec on obligations, including rules on contract termination and the consequences of annulling a contract for services. The judgment specifically noted that, under the L.p.c. and the Civil Code, a consumer in Ms. Berthelot’s position has the right to cancel registrations even during a sports season, and is entitled to a proportionate reimbursement of services not rendered. The decision therefore framed the dispute as a consumer and contract law issue: whether, following her cancellation, Ms. Berthelot could recover the amounts corresponding to games and a season that were never actually provided due to the pandemic-related suspensions.

Policy terms and contractual conditions

The decision does not reproduce or analyze detailed written policy terms from LDDH regarding refunds, credits, or force majeure clauses. Instead, the judge relied primarily on the overarching statutory framework of the L.p.c. and the Civil Code to determine the parties’ rights. In effect, even if the league had internal policies prioritizing the replay of cancelled games over refunds, such policies could not override the consumer’s statutory right to cancel and obtain reimbursement for non-performed services. The court thus treated the league’s position—that it would only consider refunds after attempting to reschedule games—as incompatible with the consumer protection rules that allow a client to terminate and recover amounts for services that were not delivered.

Decision, remedies, and outcome

Having accepted that the contracts were governed by the L.p.c. and that Ms. Berthelot had properly cancelled her children’s registrations, the court concluded that she was entitled to reimbursement of the unused portion of the winter–spring 2020 season and the entirety of the autumn 2020 season. The judge quantified the recoverable amounts at 297.50 dollars for the unplayed portion of the winter–spring 2020 season and 500 dollars for the autumn 2020 season, for a principal total of 797.50 dollars. Legal interest at the statutory rate, plus the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, was awarded from 20 February 2022, the date on which LDDH was put in default by the formal demand letter. The court also granted costs in Ms. Berthelot’s favour, including 25.88 dollars for the cost of sending the demand letter and 112 dollars for court filing fees, for total costs of 137.88 dollars. In sum, the successful party is Ms. Mélanie Berthelot, and the court ordered LDDH to pay her a total of 935.38 dollars in fixed amounts (797.50 dollars in reimbursement plus 137.88 dollars in costs), in addition to legal interest and the statutory additional indemnity, the precise monetary value of which cannot be determined from the judgment alone.