Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• CDR Structure (9487-5770 Québec Inc.) claimed $9,014.04 from CMM Construction Inc. for unpaid subcontract labour performed on the Tijaro construction project.
• All agreements between the parties were verbal, making the credibility of witness testimony — particularly that of Messrs. Racicot and Ménard — central to the outcome.
• CMM Construction Inc. filed a counterclaim for $13,347.85 (comprising $11,062.72 for lost profit on the Job Jobin project and $2,285.13 for two unpaid invoices) plus $1,652.15 for lumber it alleged was wrongfully withheld.
• No preponderant evidence established that the Tijaro billing was linked to the earlier Job Jobin project, defeating CMM's set-off defence.
• Corporate separateness was a key legal issue: the court dismissed the forced intervention claim against David Racicot personally, as no evidence justified piercing the corporate veil.
• Judicial compensation was applied to offset the two valid debts, leaving a net balance of $6,728.91 in favour of the plaintiff.

Facts of the case

On 2 June 2026, the Court of Québec (Small Claims Division) rendered judgment in a construction subcontracting dispute between 9487-5770 Québec Inc. (operating as CDR Structure), represented by David Racicot, and CMM Construction Inc., represented by Maxime Ménard. CDR Structure claimed $9,014.04 from CMM Construction Inc. for labour supplied under a subcontract on a construction site operated by general contractor Tijaro. CMM Construction Inc. refused to pay, asserting that CDR Structure owed it money under a separate earlier project known as "Job Jobin," and that the Tijaro amount should be deducted from that debt. CMM also filed a counterclaim for $13,347.85 — comprising $11,062.72 for an alleged loss of profit on the Job Jobin project and $2,285.13 for two unpaid invoices — as well as $1,652.15 for lumber it claimed was in the plaintiff's possession and being withheld. CMM further sought the forced intervention of David Racicot personally, alleging bad faith on his part in using corporate entities to avoid his obligations.

Contractual and evidentiary framework

All agreements between the parties were verbal. As a result, the case turned entirely on the competing testimonies of Messrs. Racicot and Ménard, which converged on some points but diverged sharply on others. The court applied the civil standard of proof by preponderance of evidence under Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, requiring that evidence be clear, credible, reliable, and convincing. The Job Jobin project had itself been a verbal partnership agreement — between CMM Construction Inc. and Construction David Racicot Inc. — for the framing of a residential building. Ménard claimed the profit-sharing arrangement was 55% to Construction David Racicot Inc. and 45% to CMM Construction Inc., a term Racicot denied agreeing to.

Court's reasoning and analysis

On the main claim, the court found that CMM Construction Inc. acknowledged having retained CDR Structure's labour services for the Tijaro subcontract, and that the invoiced amount of $9,014.04 corresponded to the agreed hours and hourly rate. The court rejected CMM's contention that this amount was linked to or should be offset against any debt arising from Job Jobin, finding no probative evidence to support that position. No legal basis for conventional or statutory set-off under Articles 1672 and 1673 of the Civil Code of Québec was established.

On the counterclaim, the plaintiff conceded owing $2,285.13 on two unpaid invoices, and the court accepted that portion. However, the profit-sharing claim of $11,062.72 related to Job Jobin was found to be a debt owed by Construction David Racicot Inc., which had declared bankruptcy on 5 April 2024. The court noted that CMM had already filed a claim in that bankruptcy without success. The court declined to hold either 9487-5770 Québec Inc. or David Racicot personally liable for obligations contracted by a separate legal entity. No evidence was presented to justify an exception to the principle of corporate separateness. The claim regarding the $1,652.15 worth of lumber was also dismissed: the evidence showed that the plaintiff had offered to return the lumber at CMM's convenience, and CMM had refused or neglected to collect it without apparent reason. The forced intervention against David Racicot personally was rejected outright, as CMM's allegation of fraudulent bankruptcy was made without any supporting evidence.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court allowed the main claim in full and partly allowed the counterclaim. CMM Construction Inc. was ordered to pay $9,014.04 to 9487-5770 Québec Inc., while 9487-5770 Québec Inc. was ordered to pay $2,285.13 to CMM Construction Inc. After applying judicial compensation to offset both debts, CMM Construction Inc. was condemned to pay the net sum of $6,728.91 to 9487-5770 Québec Inc., with legal interest and the additional indemnity under Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec running from the date of service of the claim on 11 July 2024. The forced intervention against David Racicot was rejected. Costs of $303.00 were awarded in favour of the plaintiff, 9487-5770 Québec Inc.