Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• H&R Block Canada inc. sought a provisional interlocutory injunction against its franchisee Yves Meunier inc. and its principals for alleged breaches of non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in their franchise agreements.
• Five franchise locations — in Saint-Hyacinthe, Chambly, Laprairie, Cowansville, and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu — were at the center of the dispute.
• While still operating the H&R Block franchises, the defendants obtained a licence under the name "Impôt Facile" and began conducting competing tax preparation services from the same physical premises.
• On April 22, 2026 — eight days before the individual tax filing deadline — the defendants sent an email to all clients of the five branches announcing the immediate end of their relationship with H&R Block and inviting clients to continue with the defendants directly.
• The court found a strong prima facie case (apparence de droit), serious and irreparable harm, a balance of inconvenience favouring H&R Block, and urgency — satisfying all four criteria for provisional injunctive relief.
• No monetary award was granted at this stage; the injunction was issued to enforce contractual obligations pending a hearing on the merits.

Facts of the case

H&R Block Canada inc. is a franchisor that entered into a series of franchise agreements with Yves Meunier inc. (YMI), beginning in 2007. Under these agreements, YMI operated five H&R Block branches: Saint-Hyacinthe (from 2007), Chambly (from 2008), Laprairie (from 2008), Cowansville (from 2015), and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu (from 2018). The franchise agreements required YMI to use H&R Block's computer systems, through which client files were managed and royalties calculated. Ownership of the clientele was expressly vested in H&R Block.

Relations between the parties began to deteriorate in early 2025 following changes to H&R Block's computer systems. In April 2025, without H&R Block's knowledge and in breach of the franchise agreements, YMI obtained a software licence under the name "Impôt Facile" and adopted it as a trade name. The Impôt Facile website listed three business addresses corresponding to H&R Block branches in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Chambly, and Cowansville. In autumn 2025, H&R Block discovered a sharp drop in revenues from the Saint-Hyacinthe branch, traced to a YMI employee competing directly with H&R Block. After an audit, YMI dismissed that employee, and H&R Block took no further action at that time.

In February 2026, a former YMI employee, Mélissa Vachon, informed H&R Block that the competing activity was continuing, alleging that Daniel Richard was processing tax returns through his own company using a dual-licence arrangement. H&R Block launched an investigation. On April 22, 2026, Jeff Wilkie, H&R Block's Director of Franchise Operations, attended the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu branch to conduct an audit as permitted under the franchise agreements. Daniel Richard refused to cooperate and stated that the contracts would be ending at the close of April. Visits to that branch and the Saint-Hyacinthe branch revealed that Impôt Facile signage had been installed on the premises.

That same day — April 22, 2026, eight days before the deadline for filing individual tax returns — the defendants sent an email to all clients of the five branches announcing the immediate termination of their relationship with H&R Block. A second email invited clients to either continue their files directly with Michel Richard, Daniel Richard, Marie-Ève Granger, or Sylvie Bergeron, or transfer their files to another H&R Block office or a professional of their choice. H&R Block commenced proceedings on May 1, 2026, and the matter was heard on May 6, 2026.

Contractual clauses at issue

The franchise agreements contained express non-competition and non-solicitation obligations. For the Cowansville, Chambly, Laprairie, and Saint-Hyacinthe franchises, the agreements prohibited the franchisee and its related persons from offering tax preparation services within a 45 km radius of the franchise location for a period of one year following termination, in addition to the current and following tax seasons. For the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu franchise, the restriction covered a 30 km radius for a period of two years following termination. The agreements also vested ownership of client files and clientele exclusively in H&R Block. Article 11 of the franchise agreements expressly permitted the franchisor to conduct audits, and Articles 11 and 12 governed H&R Block's right to terminate for breach. For the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu franchise, the corresponding termination provisions were found in Articles 13 and 14.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court assessed the four criteria for a provisional interlocutory injunction under Articles 510 and 511 of the Code of Civil Procedure: (i) a prima facie case (apparence de droit), (ii) serious or irreparable harm, (iii) balance of inconvenience, and (iv) urgency, applying the framework summarised by the Court of Appeal in Groupe CRH Canada inc. c. Beauregard, 2018 QCCA 1063.

On the first criterion, the court found a strong prima facie case. The franchise agreements unambiguously prohibited the defendants from operating a competing tax preparation business, whether directly or indirectly, during the term of the agreements and for a defined period following termination. The court noted that the competing activity was being conducted in the very same premises as the H&R Block branches — with Impôt Facile signage installed — and that a customer seeking H&R Block on Google Maps would be directed to Impôt Facile, and vice versa. The court rejected the defendants' attempt at the hearing to characterise their April 22 communications as premature and their position that the parties remained bound by the agreements, finding this irreconcilable with the content of the emails, which had invited H&R Block's clients to remain with the defendants and offered the transfer of client files to H&R Block as an option — even though, under the agreements, those clients belonged to H&R Block. The court also dismissed the defendants' argument that Quebec's Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector prevented disclosure of client information to H&R Block, finding that H&R Block was not a third party within the meaning of that legislation and that it owned the files and clientele under the terms of the contracts.

On serious or irreparable harm, the court found that loss of clientele constitutes harm that is difficult to quantify and satisfies the statutory threshold, citing Lampe Berger Canada inc. c. Pot pourri Accent inc., 2005 QCCA 1111, among other authorities. That harm was compounded by the fact that the competing operations were being run from inside the franchise premises. On the balance of inconvenience, the court held that H&R Block faced loss of clientele and destabilisation of its franchise network, while any harm suffered by the defendants stemmed from their own conduct — in particular their decision to send termination notices and client solicitation emails on April 22, 2026. On urgency, the court was satisfied that H&R Block had acted promptly following receipt of Mélissa Vachon's email on February 26, 2026, the April 22 site visits, and the commencement of proceedings on May 1, 2026.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted the provisional interlocutory injunction in favour of H&R Block, valid for a period of ten days. The defendants — along with their administrators, officers, employees, agents, and any persons acting under their direction or control — were ordered to immediately cease all competing tax preparation activities within the applicable radii around each franchise location; to cease soliciting or communicating with H&R Block's clients; to stop using H&R Block's trademarks, trade names, and identifying information; and to cease using, disclosing, or retaining any confidential information or property belonging to H&R Block, including client files, databases, software, and electronic records. The defendants were also required to remove all Impôt Facile signage and online content within 24 hours of service of the order, install recorded telephone messages redirecting callers to H&R Block, post closure notices at each premises, and provide H&R Block and its representatives — supervised by a bailiff and, if necessary, an independent forensic IT expert — with full access to the premises and all computer systems to identify, copy, extract, and recover H&R Block's property. The court dispensed H&R Block from providing security for costs, noting that the injunction was directed primarily at enforcing clear contractual obligations. No monetary damages were assessed or awarded at this interlocutory stage; the matter was scheduled to return to the practice roll on May 21, 2026 for further proceedings on the merits.