Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Pierre S. Adjété claimed that his long-time friend Dodji Elvis Koblavi induced him to invest a total of $21,997 in a cryptocurrency platform called Antares, which later collapsed in what Adjété characterised as a Ponzi scheme.
• Central to the dispute was whether Koblavi made guarantees or false representations to persuade Adjété to invest, or whether he merely shared information about his own recent investment.
• Contradictory testimony from both parties meant the court could not establish a preponderant version of events in Adjété's favour.
• Documentary evidence confirmed that all investment funds were transferred either directly through the Antares website or into the bank account of a third party, Mme Dolores Houédjissin — not through Koblavi.
• No contract, express or implied, was found to exist between the parties, and no legal obligation on Koblavi's part was established.
• Koblavi was himself found to have lost his own investment of $2,500 USD when the Antares platform collapsed.

Facts of the case

Pierre S. Adjété, an economist by training, and Dodji Elvis Koblavi had been friends for over twenty years, a friendship rooted in their shared Togolese origins. At the relevant time, both men were federal public servants. In 2021, the parties collaborated on preparing a conference about Togo and the importance of strengthening democracy in their home country, meeting on several occasions in that context.

According to Adjété, Koblavi approached him unsolicited and encouraged him to invest in cryptocurrency through a firm called Antares, via a mutual contact named Mme Dolores Houédjissin. Adjété alleged that Koblavi told him he had personally invested and benefited from returns, that Houédjissin was a cautious and trustworthy person, that Antares was set to be listed on the stock exchange on 22 February 2022, and that capital and earnings could be withdrawn at any time. Koblavi assisted Adjété in creating his member profile on the Antares platform by taking his photograph. Adjété went on to invest a total of $21,997, with funds remitted either directly through the Antares website or into Houédjissin's personal bank account. In February 2022, Adjété discovered that the Antares website was no longer operational and that the firm had not been listed on the stock exchange as promised. He concluded he had been the victim of a Ponzi scheme and filed a claim before the Small Claims Division in February 2024, seeking $15,000 from Koblavi.

Koblavi's account differed significantly. He stated that he had casually mentioned his own recent cryptocurrency investment of $2,500 USD on the Antares platform to Adjété during their conference preparation meetings, showed him the site and his member page, and noted that he himself did not fully understand how the platform worked. He maintained that Adjété independently chose to contact Houédjissin for more information. Koblavi denied making any guarantees, denied telling Adjété that funds could be withdrawn at any time, denied having personally benefited from Adjété's investments, and denied acting as guarantor for Houédjissin or for Antares. He further stated that he had himself lost his entire investment when the Antares platform collapsed and had never recovered any of it.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

No formal contract — express or implied — was found to exist between the parties. The court noted that the evidence disclosed no service agreement, mandate, fiduciary relationship, or any arrangement making Koblavi an administrator of another's property. The question of whether Koblavi had made a "promise for the act of a third party" within the meaning of articles 1443 and following of the Civil Code of Québec was considered, but the court found no preponderant evidence to support such a finding. The applicable burden of proof was governed by articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, and the standard for presumptions was that set out in article 2849 C.c.Q., requiring that they be serious, precise, and consistent.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court framed the core question as whether Koblavi was himself a victim of the Ponzi scheme or a co-conspirator. Applying the civil standard of preponderance of evidence — which requires proof that is clear and convincing, and that the alleged facts are not merely possible but probable — the court found that the testimony of both parties was equally credible and that neither version clearly dominated the other. Because the burden of proof rested with Adjété, the inability to establish a preponderant version of events was fatal to his claim.

The court examined the documentary evidence produced by Adjété, including bank statements and text message exchanges. A $200 transfer from Adjété to Koblavi that had been highlighted in the documents was found, by the unanimous admission of both parties, to be unrelated to any cryptocurrency investment — it was a reimbursement to Koblavi for use of his Zoom account in connection with the Togo conference. The court found this consistent with Koblavi's position that no investment-related funds had passed through him. Adjété himself confirmed that all investment transfers went either through the Antares platform or through Houédjissin's bank account directly.

The court also noted that Koblavi had not responded to a formal demand letter sent in January 2023 requesting repayment and Houédjissin's address. Koblavi explained this by stating that he and Adjété were at that time in conflict over the Togo conference, and that Adjété already had Houédjissin's contact information and could approach her directly. The court accepted that Adjété had access to Houédjissin and had maintained extensive correspondence with her. The court further noted that Koblavi had not been the subject of any police inquiry despite Adjété's reference to having contacted law enforcement. The presumptions advanced by Adjété did not meet the threshold of being serious, precise, and consistent as required by article 2849 C.c.Q.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed Adjété's claim in its entirety, finding that Koblavi had done no more than inform his friend of his own cryptocurrency investment and put him in contact with Houédjissin — without pressure and without any particular encouragement. No fault, negligence, false representation, or civil liability on Koblavi's part was established. While acknowledging Adjété's understandable frustration at having lost a significant sum, the court held that this misfortune did not translate into civil liability for Koblavi. Exercising its discretion under article 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court ordered each party to bear their own legal costs — meaning Adjété was not required to pay the costs Koblavi had incurred in filing his written contestation. The successful party was Dodji Elvis Koblavi; no monetary award or damages were ordered in favour of either party.