Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Johanne Jetté claimed $9,132.46 from Construction Experttom inc. for breach of a service contract after the contractor unilaterally terminated the agreement.
• Under Article 2126 of the Civil Code of Québec, a contractor may only unilaterally terminate a service contract for a serious reason.
• Construction Experttom inc. failed to demonstrate a serious reason for termination, as the client's expressions of dissatisfaction over communication delays did not meet that threshold.
• Despite establishing wrongful termination, the claimant bore the burden of proving her damages by a preponderance of evidence.
• Evidentiary gaps — including mismatched work descriptions, a two-year time gap, and the absence of competing bids — prevented the court from confirming that replacement work was equivalent in scope and cost.
• The counterclaim for reputational damage was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as such claims fall outside the Small Claims Division's authority.

Facts of the case

In 2021, Johanne Jetté owned two properties located on Rue Châteaubriand and Rue Saint-Vallier in Montréal. Seeking to carry out renovation work, she requested quotes from Construction Experttom inc. (Experttom). On March 5, 2021, Experttom submitted two quotes, which Jetté accepted on March 10, 2021. Minor secondary work was completed on April 12, 2021 for $497.83. The main works, however, never began — partly due to the city's building permit not being issued until September 13, 2021, and partly due to Experttom's workforce availability problems. These delays gradually eroded the parties' relationship. On November 7, 2021, Experttom terminated the contract. The following day, Jetté's partner informed Experttom's representative, Mr. Gosselin, that legal action would follow, after which Experttom took the position that no contract had ever existed. A final formal notice demanding performance was sent on March 28, 2022, but Experttom did not change its position. The replacement works were eventually carried out by third-party contractors in June 2022 and in 2023. Jetté subsequently filed a claim for $9,132.46, representing the difference between Experttom's original quoted price and the actual cost of work performed by those third parties. Experttom filed a counterclaim for reputational damage.

Contractual and legal framework

The agreement between the parties constituted a service contract governed by Articles 2098 and following of the Civil Code of Québec. The submitted quotes required a 20% deposit before work commenced — not at the time of contract formation — meaning the absence of a deposit did not negate the existence of the contract. Article 2125 C.c.Q. allows a client to unilaterally terminate a service contract at any time, while Article 2126 C.c.Q. imposes a stricter standard on the contractor: unilateral termination is only permitted for a serious reason, and even then, must not be done at an inopportune time. A contractor who terminates without a serious reason is liable for damages caused to the client.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court first confirmed that a valid contract existed between the parties, noting that the absence of a deposit was irrelevant to contract formation since the deposit was only due before works commenced. Turning to the question of termination, the court applied Article 2126 C.c.Q. and relied on academic commentary by Professor Vincent Karim and Professor Jacques Deslauriers, both of whom emphasize that a serious reason must be assessed objectively — that is, against the standard of a reasonable person — and that personality clashes or a client's demanding attitude do not qualify. The court found that Experttom's reasons for terminating — principally the client's complaints about communication difficulties and delays — did not amount to a serious reason. Experttom had therefore wrongfully terminated the contract and was, in principle, liable for damages.

However, liability alone was not sufficient. The court then examined whether Jetté had discharged her burden of proving her damages. Three evidentiary deficiencies were fatal to her claim. First, the descriptions of the replacement works in exhibits P-3 through P-6 did not align with the scope of works in Experttom's original quote. As an illustration, Experttom's quote provided for ventilation work at $239.99 plus taxes, while the replacement work for that same category cost $4,820.00 plus taxes — a discrepancy the court found improbable for equivalent work, even accounting for inflation. Second, some works were only executed two years after the original contract date, and the court could not rule out that time and market conditions had independently affected pricing. Third, no competing bids were produced to show that Jetté had sought the lowest available price for the replacement works.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed Jetté's claim in its entirety, finding that she had not established her damages by a preponderance of evidence, despite Experttom's wrongful termination being established. No monetary award was granted in her favor. The judgment was issued without costs. As for Experttom's counterclaim for reputational damage, the court declared it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate such a claim, as it falls outside the scope of the Small Claims Division. Construction Experttom inc. was the successful party in the dismissal of the main claim, with no amounts ordered against it.