Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Transport TFI 11 inc. contracted with 9428-3587 Québec inc. to carry goods for the Canadian national defence from Bagotville, Quebec to Kananaskis, Alberta.
• Without notifying TFI 11, the defendant sub-contracted the transport to a third carrier, DA-NA Transport — a practice known as "double brokering."
• Despite collecting full payment from TFI 11, the defendant failed to pay DA-NA Transport, even after receiving a formal demand dated July 15, 2025.
• DA-NA Transport exercised its direct recourse against the national defence under section 2 of the Bills of Lading Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. B-5, compelling TFI 11 to intervene.
• To protect its own obligations to the national defence, TFI 11 paid DA-NA Transport $8,010 on September 2, 2025.
• Proceeding by default, the court found the defendant liable for TFI 11's double payment, as the defendant was responsible for the sub-contracting it had concealed.

Facts of the case

Transport TFI 11 inc. (TFI 11), the plaintiff, entered into an agreement with 9428-3587 Québec inc. (the defendant) to carry goods on behalf of the Canadian national defence, under voyage confirmation number 369397. The shipment originated in Bagotville, Quebec and was destined for Kananaskis, Alberta, as recorded in the bill of lading (Exhibit P-3). TFI 11 paid the defendant in full for the transport. Without informing TFI 11, the defendant then sub-contracted the transport to a third-party carrier, DA-NA Transport.

Contractual and statutory provisions at issue

The arrangement between the parties included a stipulation prohibiting the defendant from engaging in "double brokering" — that is, re-brokering a shipment to another carrier without the original broker's knowledge. The special clerk's referral of April 1, 2026 noted that the defendant had not signed this clause, raising the question of its enforceability under the principle of the relative effect of contracts (effet relatif des contrats). Additionally, section 2 of the Bills of Lading Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. B-5, was engaged: this provision gave DA-NA Transport a direct right of recourse against the national defence as the shipper, which in turn compelled TFI 11 to act to protect its own contractual relationship with its client.

Reasoning and analysis

Despite having received full payment from TFI 11, the defendant neglected or refused to remit payment to DA-NA Transport. A formal demand was issued on July 15, 2025 (received August 13, 2025, Exhibit P-6) requiring the defendant to pay DA-NA Transport. The defendant did not comply. Because DA-NA Transport could pursue the national defence directly under the Bills of Lading Act, TFI 11 was effectively forced to pay DA-NA Transport itself on September 2, 2025 — the amount being $8,010 (Exhibit P-6) — to honour its own obligations to the national defence. The court found this double payment to be the direct consequence of the defendant's failure to pay DA-NA Transport and its deliberate concealment of the sub-contracting arrangement. As the defendant failed to respond to the originating application served by bailiff on November 4, 2025, and did not appear at the May 19, 2026 hearing, the matter proceeded by default. The court determined that September 2, 2025 — the date of TFI 11's second payment — was the most appropriate moment from which to calculate interest, pursuant to article 1618 of the Civil Code of Québec.

Ruling and outcome

The court granted the application and condemned 9428-3587 Québec inc. to pay $8,010 to Transport TFI 11 inc., with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, running from September 2, 2025, with costs of justice. Transport TFI 11 inc. was the successful party.