Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Allocation of liability between the boat owner and the carrier for physical damage to the vessel during road transport from Florida to Québec
• Application of the carrier’s presumed liability under articles 2040 and 2049 C.c.Q. and the extent of proof needed to show pre-existing damage or other exonerating causes
• Weight given to contemporaneous documents (emails, photos, inspection report, invoices) versus oral testimony in establishing which damages occurred during transport
• Responsibility for failing to remove or secure equipment (notably the TV antenna) before loading, and whether the mandatary’s omission relieves the specialized transporter of liability
• Contractual interpretation of the transport agreement, including who must ensure that the pick-up and delivery marinas are physically able and staffed to receive the vessel
• Characterisation of the broker’s role as mandatary and whether he is personally liable for the transport price or for any contribution in warranty

Factual background

Jean-François Taillefer purchased a 2013 Formula 400SS boat located in Florida through boat broker Rémy Carrier, who acted as his mandatary. To bring the boat to Québec, Carrier contacted Claude Girard, owner of Can-Am Marine Transport inc. (Can-Am Transport), a specialized road carrier of large boats. Can-Am submitted a written quote that Mr. Taillefer accepted, covering transport from Coastal Marine Yacht Marina in St-Petersburg, Florida, to Marina Bobino in Sainte-Dorothée, Québec, for a price of 11,500 dollars. The quote also contained conditions specifying that the pick-up and delivery points had to be “accessible and carrossable,” effectively placing responsibility for the suitability of the sites on the customer.
On 22 July 2020, Can-Am’s driver, Claude Périgny, arrived at the St-Petersburg marina and took charge of the boat once it had been brought there by water. Before loading, Girard had emailed Carrier, instructing him to remove certain items visible in an attached photo—specifically the radar, TV antenna and other protruding equipment—to prepare the vessel safely for highway transport. Carrier vaguely recalled the request but did not follow through, and the TV antenna remained on the boat. Périgny, who was not authorized to dismantle equipment himself, loaded the boat as it was, believing height clearances remained acceptable even with the antenna in place.
The boat was initially scheduled for unloading at Marina Bobino on 25 July 2020. Two days before that date, Carrier informed Girard that the only employee at Bobino qualified to operate the necessary heavy equipment was on vacation, so the marina could not receive the vessel. Can-Am then rearranged delivery to the Marina de l’Île Perrot, which had the capacity to unload the boat. On 25 July, Périgny delivered and unloaded the boat there in the presence of Taillefer and another individual, Joseph Di Maria. Taillefer refused to sign the bill of lading for reasons he never clearly explained, but he did hand Girard a cheque for 11,500 dollars for the transport. Three days later, on 28 July, Taillefer put a stop payment on the cheque, asserting that his boat had been damaged during transport.

Claims and legal framework

In August 2020, Can-Am demanded payment of the transport price, and Taillefer responded that he would not pay because of alleged transport-related damage. In September 2020, he sent a more detailed letter listing multiple items he said had been damaged and enclosing invoices and estimates for repairs. He then brought a small claims action on 8 October 2020, initially seeking 12,195.69 dollars (the net of 23,695.69 dollars in alleged repair costs minus the 11,500-dollar transport fee). At trial, he maintained the full 23,695.69-dollar repair figure but reduced his claim to 15,000 dollars to remain within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division, leaving it to the court to handle any compensation against Can-Am’s own claim for the unpaid transport price.
Can-Am defended the action on the basis that much of the damage pre-dated its involvement and, additionally, that Carrier had failed to follow its explicit preparation instructions. It also filed a counterclaim seeking the unpaid 11,500-dollar transport fee from Taillefer and Carrier, and brought Carrier into the proceedings by a claim in warranty, arguing that if Can-Am was held liable, Carrier should indemnify it because of his failures as intermediary.
The court applied articles 2040 and 2049 of the Civil Code of Québec. Article 2040 defines the period of the transport as covering the time from the carrier’s taking charge of the goods until delivery, while article 2049 establishes that the carrier is presumed liable for loss or damage occurring during that period unless it can prove an exonerating cause such as force majeure, inherent vice of the goods, or normal shrinkage. Québec case law, which the court referenced, treats the carrier’s obligation as one of result: it must deliver the goods in the same condition in which it received them, and bears the burden of demonstrating any exonerating factor. The usual civil burden of proof by balance of probabilities (preponderance of evidence) governed all aspects of the parties’ claims and defences.

Court’s analysis of the alleged damages

Taillefer alleged four main categories of physical loss or damage: the loss of the TV antenna, the loss of a Wi-Fi antenna, the loss of one propeller (on the port-side drive), damage to the starboard drive, and a disconnected exhaust hose. He further sought compensation for loss of use of the boat for the 2020 summer season, asserting that the time taken for repairs deprived him of enjoyment of his new vessel.
On the TV antenna, the court found that Can-Am did not dispute that the antenna was present on the boat at the time of loading and that it was missing upon delivery. The evidence showed that Girard had explicitly ordered Carrier to have such external equipment removed before transport. Carrier admitted, albeit vaguely, that he had received this instruction but had not acted on it, and Périgny testified that he did not remove the antenna himself. There was no evidence of any exonerating factor such as inherent vice or force majeure. As a specialized carrier, Can-Am had to decide how to perform the transport safely; it could have refused to haul the boat with the antenna in place or arranged to have it removed. The court held that the loss of the TV antenna occurred during transport and fell within Can-Am’s presumed liability, which it had not rebutted.
Regarding the Wi-Fi antenna, the situation was different. Périgny testified credibly that, at pick-up, only the items visible on the photo (radar, TV antenna and light) were present on the mast structure, and that there was no separate Wi-Fi antenna. The court accepted this testimony, supported by photographs, and concluded that Taillefer had not proven that any Wi-Fi antenna existed on the boat at the time the carrier took charge. Without that initial factual predicate, the presumption of liability under article 2049 C.c.Q. was not engaged, and this claimed loss was rejected.
As to the missing propeller on the port-side drive, the evidence again favoured the carrier. Contemporary photographs taken when Périgny first took charge of the vessel showed that, more likely than not, one of the propellers on the port-side leg was already missing at that time. The court therefore held that the absence of this propeller constituted a “vice propre du bien” (an existing condition of the property) rather than damage caused in the course of transport. Can-Am thus successfully established an exonerating ground and was not liable for the claimed cost of replacing the propeller.
The court added that, even if liability had been established for the missing propeller, Taillefer’s conduct would still have undermined his monetary claim. He had the propeller replaced and paid 6,339.72 dollars before sending a formal demand, contrary to his duty under articles 1590 and 1595 C.c.Q. to put the carrier in default, give it a proper opportunity to remedy or address the alleged breach, and only then seek damages. By acting unilaterally and only later sending a demand that referred back to work already done, he prevented the carrier from participating in the mitigation or verification of the loss, which would in any event have justified denying recovery of that expense.
On the alleged damage to the starboard drive, Taillefer relied largely on his own account and a general invoice referencing diagnostics and work on the steering system. The court found this insufficient. No detailed expert or mechanic’s report was produced to link any particular mechanical fault to transport-related stress. Photographs introduced by Can-Am showed that the position of the starboard drive at arrival was essentially the same as at departure. The court also rejected Taillefer’s lay opinion that the boat could not have navigated from its original berth to St-Petersburg if the drives had been damaged beforehand, ruling that only proper expert evidence could establish such mechanical propositions. Because the boat had remained with the seller’s estate between inspection and pick-up, it was also entirely possible that someone used it in the meantime and caused any damage that might exist before Can-Am’s involvement.
With respect to the disconnected exhaust hose, the photos did show a disconnected pipe. However, no evidence established that it had been properly connected when Can-Am took charge, and the court could not conclude that the disconnection must have occurred during road transport. Taillefer himself characterized the issue as minor, using it more as an example of what he saw as negligent loading than as a substantial independent head of damage. The court ultimately found that he had not met his burden of proving that this condition was caused during the transport.

Issues relating to the delivery location

Taillefer also claimed damages related to the change of delivery point, asserting that Can-Am should have ensured in advance that Marina Bobino was able and staffed to receive the boat on the scheduled date. He argued that the carrier’s failure to verify this led to additional handling and transport costs when the vessel had to be unloaded instead at the Marina de l’Île Perrot and later moved to its intended marina.
The court rejected this argument. It emphasized that choice of loading and delivery locations lies primarily with the owner of the vessel, not the carrier. In this case, Carrier, acting for Taillefer, had arranged the waterborne leg from the original berth to the St-Petersburg marina, and the destination, Marina Bobino, was chosen by Taillefer, who was an experienced boat owner and picked that marina for its convenience to his home. Can-Am’s role was to handle the overland logistics, including customs-related matters and instructions on how to prepare the boat for safe road transport. The problem at Marina Bobino arose from the absence of the only qualified employee able to operate the offloading equipment, a circumstance within the sphere of the marina and the client, not the carrier.
The written quote itself strengthened this conclusion: its conditions clearly stated that pick-up and delivery locations must be accessible and suitable for the truck and trailer. This wording signalled that the customer bore the risk that the selected marinas would be physically and operationally ready to receive the vessel. On this basis, the court found no contractual breach by Can-Am in redirecting the delivery to another capable marina once it learned that Bobino could not handle the unloading on the agreed date.

Findings on the roles of the broker and mandatary

A separate strand of the case concerned the legal role and potential liability of Rémy Carrier, the boat broker who had facilitated the purchase and arranged the transport as mandatary for Taillefer. Can-Am had brought Carrier into the action on a claim in warranty, alleging that if it were held liable to Taillefer, Carrier should indemnify it, particularly due to his failure to implement the instructions to remove the antennas and equipment before loading. Can-Am also included Carrier as a target of its counterclaim for the unpaid transport price.
The court first clarified that, despite some earlier ambiguity in the pleadings, Taillefer was not pursuing any direct claim against Carrier; Carrier’s only exposure was via Can-Am’s claim in warranty and its reconventional claim. It then examined whether Carrier’s inaction regarding the pre-transport removal of equipment had any bearing on the antenna loss. The judge found that Carrier had indeed received explicit instructions from Girard to ensure that the radar, TV antenna and related items shown on the photo were removed for transport, and that he did not carry out this task. That omission contributed to the TV antenna remaining in place and being torn off during the journey.
In principle, such a failure could support a proportionate contribution in warranty in favour of the carrier. However, the court also underscored that Can-Am, as a specialized transporter, bore ultimate responsibility for choosing the proper means of performance. It could have refused to move the boat with the antenna still installed or insisted more forcefully that the work be done before loading. The court thus navigated a nuanced position: Carrier’s omission was a contributing factor, but it did not supplant the carrier’s own primary responsibility under the transport regime.
On the question of liability for the transport price, the court examined Carrier’s status as a mandatary. Because Carrier was acting openly on behalf of Taillefer and within the limits of his mandate, article 2157 C.c.Q. applied: a mandatary who contracts in the name of a disclosed principal, within the mandate, does not become personally bound to the other contracting party. Can-Am knew that Carrier was arranging the shipment as broker and agent for Taillefer, not on his own behalf. As a result, the court held that Carrier had no personal obligation to pay the transport fee; only Taillefer, as principal, owed the 11,500 dollars.

Ruling and outcome

After reviewing all the evidence and legal arguments, the court largely rejected Taillefer’s claim for extensive repair costs and loss of use. The only head of damage it accepted was the loss of the TV antenna, for which it awarded 448.33 dollars against Can-Am Transport. All other alleged items of damage were found either to be pre-existing, unproven as transport-related, or unsupported by proper expert or documentary evidence, and the claim for consequential loss of enjoyment of the boat during the summer was implicitly dismissed with the property-damage claims.
On the flip side, the court allowed Can-Am’s counterclaim for the full 11,500-dollar transport price as against Taillefer, who had already admitted that the fee was owed under the contract. The reconventional claim against Carrier for that amount was dismissed, consistent with his role as mandatary rather than contracting party. The claim in warranty against Carrier, seeking to shift part of the antenna-related loss to him, was also rejected in the final result, with each party bearing its own costs for that aspect.
The court then set off the two successful monetary claims by way of legal compensation: it offset the 448.33 dollars awarded to Taillefer for the antenna against the 11,500 dollars owed to Can-Am for the transport. The net result was a condemnation ordering Taillefer to pay Can-Am Marine Transport inc. 11,051.67 dollars, together with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided by article 1619 C.c.Q. from 10 October 2020. In practical terms, this meant that Can-Am emerged as the clearly successful party, recovering the full transport fee less a modest set-off for the lost antenna, while Taillefer’s broader damages claim was almost entirely dismissed and no monetary award at all was made against the broker, Carrier.