Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Alexis Giboudot-Ruffe claimed $14,797 in damages against La Fabrique Allwood inc. for alleged loss of value of three unfinished personal projects.
• Central to the dispute was whether a verbal service agreement existed between the parties obligating Allwood to complete the projects.
• Allwood denied any contractual obligation, asserting it merely lent tools and workspace to Giboudot-Ruffe as a goodwill gesture toward a former employee.
• Burden of proof under Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec required the claimant to establish his claims on a balance of probabilities.
• Civil liability under Article 1457 C.C.Q. required proof of fault, damages, and a causal link — none of which the court found sufficiently demonstrated.
• Documentary evidence, including a goods-return attestation dated July 8, 2025, supported Allwood's position that the three projects had been returned to the claimant.

Facts of the case

Alexis Giboudot-Ruffe (Giboudot-Ruffe) brought a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec against La Fabrique Allwood inc. (Allwood), seeking $14,797 in damages for the alleged loss of value of three personal projects: a kitchen counter, a murphy bed, and a punching bag bracket. Giboudot-Ruffe had previously been an employee of Allwood, which had placed him on temporary layoff due to its own financial situation and client order issues. During this period, Allwood permitted him to use its business premises and equipment to continue working on his personal projects. The hearing took place on May 22, 2026, before the Honourable Brigitte Gouin, J.C.Q., and judgment was rendered on June 10, 2026.

Giboudot-Ruffe alleged that a verbal agreement had been concluded between the parties under which Allwood undertook to perform specific work on his projects, including painting on a metal piece, continuing and finalizing the assembly of wooden shelves, applying a cage, and completing final delivery of all items. He contended that Allwood failed to honour these commitments, leaving the projects incomplete and causing him financial harm. A formal demand letter was sent on July 3, 2025, which Allwood denied, leading to the present proceedings.

Allwood contested the claim entirely. Through its vice-president Simon Bélanger, corroborated by Meghane Delorme and president Jérémie Boucher, Allwood maintained that no service agreement had ever been concluded. It described its conduct as a goodwill gesture: lending tools and workspace to a former employee who had since found employment elsewhere. Allwood also noted that it had allowed Giboudot-Ruffe's large equipment and belongings to remain in its workshop for several months without any compensation. In support of its position, Allwood produced a goods-return attestation (Pièce D-5 / Pièce P-14) dated July 8, 2025, indicating that the three projects were in Giboudot-Ruffe's possession.

Legal framework

The court identified the applicable legal standards governing the dispute. Under Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, the burden of proof rests on the party asserting a right; that party must establish the facts supporting the claim on a balance of probabilities — meaning proof that makes the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence. In a damages claim, the claimant must additionally prove the defendant's fault, the damages suffered, and the causal link between the fault and the damages. Article 1457 C.C.Q. provides the governing rule on civil liability, establishing that every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct applicable to them so as not to cause injury to others, and is liable for any injury caused by a failure to meet that duty.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court found that Giboudot-Ruffe had not met his burden of proof. Specifically, the evidence did not establish the existence of a contractual agreement between the parties, nor did it demonstrate that damages resulted from any such agreement. The court accepted that Allwood's involvement with the projects was framed as an accommodation to a former employee rather than a formal service commitment. The goods-return attestation further undermined the claimant's position by showing that the three projects had been physically returned to him. On the totality of the evidence, the court concluded that the claimant had not demonstrated fault on the part of Allwood, damages, or the required causal link.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed Giboudot-Ruffe's claim in its entirety. La Fabrique Allwood inc. was the successful party. Giboudot-Ruffe was ordered to pay costs in the amount of $374, representing the court filing fee (timbre judiciaire).