Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Cabinet Me Hugues Langlais, Avocats inc. claimed $1,100 in unpaid legal fees from Hugues Tchiakoua Tchamabe and Marianne Tientcheu E. Tchameni.
• The central issue was whether Tchameni personally committed to paying Me Bessette's professional fees for services rendered to Tchamabe.
• Me Bessette relied on an August 2, 2024 email exchange, which he himself titled "Engagement de paiement," as evidence of her commitment to pay.
• Tchameni maintained that her only commitment was to act as a surety guarantor for the Canada Border Services Agency, not to pay legal fees.
• Correspondence reviewed by the court consistently referred to Tchameni's obligation regarding the bail guarantee, not to a promise to pay legal fees.
• Under Article 2860 of the Civil Code of Québec, a valid acknowledgment of debt requires, among other things, mention of the exact amount and repayment terms — elements absent from Tchameni's response.

Facts of the case

On July 29, 2024, Hugues Tchiakoua Tchamabe, who was in pre-detention and facing return to his country of origin by the Canada Border Services Agency, contacted Me Benoît Bessette — a lawyer and member of the Bar since 2019, specialising in immigration law, and representative of the plaintiff Cabinet Me Hugues Langlais, Avocats inc. Me Bessette explained the process and advised that retaining his services for the hearing would require a transfer of $2,000. On July 31, 2024, Marianne Tientcheu E. Tchameni — Tchamabe's cousin by marriage — informed Me Bessette that she agreed to guarantee the bail required of Tchamabe. On August 1, 2024, Me Bessette contacted Tchameni to advise that the Interac transfer needed to be made, as $2,000 was to be deposited before the hearing. Me Bessette testified that he received $1,000 by Interac, transferred by Tchamabe's girlfriend, not by Tchameni. That same day, Me Bessette wrote to Tchameni advising that the second portion of the retainer remained outstanding and that he could not continue in the matter under those circumstances.

Contractual and evidentiary matters at issue

On August 2, 2024, Tchameni replied to Me Bessette's email expressing that she was sorry for the non-compliance with payment conditions and promised that "we will honour this commitment as soon as possible." She also indicated that "we have decided to raise the bail to $6,000" and transmitted supporting documents such as proof of ownership. Me Bessette responded the same day, noting: "I see that you are committing to pay the balance of the invoice for my fees." On August 7, 2024, Me Bessette sent a $1,000 invoice to Hugues Tchamabe — reflecting a deduction of the $1,000 deposit already paid — with a copy to Marianne Tchameni. A payment reminder followed on August 9, 2024, again addressed to Tchamabe with a copy to Tchameni. On September 4, 2024, Me Bessette wrote directly to Tchameni demanding immediate payment of outstanding fees by Interac transfer. On October 9, 2024, both co-defendants were formally put on notice to pay $1,131, with the account statement issued in Tchamabe's name. On March 7, 2025, Me Bessette notified the co-defendants of his intention to bring proceedings before the Small Claims Court. That same day, Tchameni asked Me Bessette to stop contacting her, stating she had never committed to paying his fees and that her only obligation was to the immigration authorities as a bail guarantor.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court rejected Me Bessette's argument that Tchameni had committed to paying his fees. Reviewing the entirety of the correspondence, the court found that Tchameni's communications consistently referred to her commitment to guarantee the bail provided by Tchamabe, not to an obligation to pay legal fees. The court also noted that the invoice and account statement from Me Bessette's office identified Hugues Tchiakoua Tchamabe as the client — not Tchameni — and that the initial $1,000 payment was made by Tchamabe or his girlfriend, not by Tchameni. Further, the court held that Tchameni's email reply did not constitute an acknowledgment of debt as required under Article 2860 of the Civil Code of Québec. Among other requirements, a valid acknowledgment of debt would have needed to specify the exact amount owed and the terms of repayment — neither of which appeared in Tchameni's message.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety, with costs. Marianne Tientcheu E. Tchameni was the successful party; no monetary amount was ordered in her favour, as the judgment simply rejected the $1,100 claim brought against her and her co-defendant.