Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Roch Le Coq Inc. (Client) sued C.F.H. Sécurité Inc. (Sécurité) for $2,700 paid to its landlord following a false fire alarm triggered during a fire protection system inspection on September 9, 2024.
• Central to the dispute was whether Sécurité's technician ensured the system was placed in "test mode" before commencing his work.
• Testimony from the building manager, who was present, established that the technician was warned about the need for test mode but proceeded without it.
• Sécurité's key evidence — the technician's account relayed by its representative and a letter from the technician's supervisor — was either inadmissible hearsay or insufficient to prove the technician confirmed test mode was active.
• The technician did not testify at trial; Sécurité elected to proceed without his evidence despite being given the opportunity to call him remotely.
• Sécurité's argument that the fine amount was excessive because it reflected a fifth false alarm in the building was rejected, as the Client's liability to the landlord arose directly from this incident.

Facts of the case

Roch Le Coq Inc., a restaurant business, had a service contract with C.F.H. Sécurité Inc., a company specialising in the installation and maintenance of fire protection systems, covering three of the Client's restaurants. Under that contract, Sécurité was responsible for inspecting fire protection systems and issuing the compliance certificates required by the Client's insurer. On September 9, 2024, a Sécurité technician attended the Client's premises at 555, rue Chabanel Ouest, Montréal, to carry out an inspection of the fire protection system. During the inspection, the fire alarm triggered, causing the building to be evacuated and the fire department to be dispatched. The City of Montréal subsequently imposed a fine, which the Client was required to pay to its landlord in the amount of $2,700. The Client brought a claim before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec to recover that sum from Sécurité.

Contractual and service obligations at issue

The parties' service contract placed Sécurité in charge of inspecting fire protection systems across the Client's restaurants and issuing compliance certificates for insurance purposes. The central obligation in dispute was procedural: the system was required to be placed in "test mode" before any inspection work begins, so that testing activity does not trigger a live alarm. The Client's building manager stated that this step needed to be taken through the building administration before the technician commenced work. The technician, however, took the position that test mode was unnecessary given that he was only conducting a visual inspection.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court focused on whether Sécurité's technician had confirmed that the system was in test mode before starting his work. The building manager, who was present during the inspection, testified that he had specifically warned the technician that test mode was required and asked whether the necessary steps had been taken with building administration. The technician indicated he did not consider it necessary for a visual inspection. The building manager further testified that he observed the technician working inside the system panel and that the technician appeared surprised when the alarm activated, which the building manager attributed to the technician's lack of experience.

Sécurité attempted to counter this evidence in two ways. First, its representative at trial relayed a conversation he had with the technician, in which the technician allegedly said he had requested that test mode be activated. The Court ruled this evidence inadmissible as hearsay. Second, Sécurité filed a letter from the technician's supervisor (Exhibit D-1), which stated that the building security agent had not asked the technician to wait before proceeding and that the alarm activation was unexpected. The Court gave this letter limited weight: the supervisor did not testify, and the letter did not establish that the technician had actually confirmed the system was in test mode before beginning work. Notably, the technician himself did not testify. The Court had offered Sécurité the opportunity to call him remotely via Teams, but this was not possible as he was on vacation, and Sécurité chose to proceed without his evidence.

On the question of damages, Sécurité argued that the Client should not be indemnified for the full $2,700 because it was the fifth false alarm in the building, and the Client was not responsible for the prior incidents. The Court rejected this argument, finding that regardless of how the fine was calculated by the City, the Client's obligation to pay that sum to its landlord arose directly from the alarm triggered during Sécurité's technician's intervention. The damage was therefore a direct consequence of Sécurité's fault.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court found, on a balance of probabilities, that Sécurité failed to demonstrate its technician had ensured the system was in test mode before commencing his inspection. That omission constituted a fault giving rise to Sécurité's liability. The Court allowed the Client's claim in full. Roch Le Coq Inc. was the successful party; C.F.H. Sécurité Inc. was ordered to pay $2,700 to Roch Le Coq Inc., together with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, running from February 26, 2025, plus court costs of $187.