Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Two plaintiff companies sued their informal tax preparer for failing to file their corporate tax returns for the 2021–2023 fiscal years.
• Central to the dispute was whether the defendant was negligent in refusing to prepare the returns, or whether that refusal was justified by the plaintiffs' alleged use of fraudulent invoices.
• Evidence presented included a large volume of text messages suggesting that the plaintiffs' representative actively sought out false renovation invoices to reduce taxable income.
• Burden of proof under Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec rested with the plaintiffs, who were required to establish the defendant's fault on a balance of probabilities.
• Despite receiving multiple assessment notices — including one dated November 4, 2022 — the plaintiffs waited until 2024 to consult a licensed accountant, which the court found contributed to their own damages.
• No formal written contract or invoice governed the arrangement, complicating the plaintiffs' claim for the $10,000 cash payment made on February 28, 2022.

Facts of the case

The plaintiffs, 9165-6538 Québec inc. (a company engaged in the operation and renovation of residential buildings) and Phon Tan Courtier Immobilier Inc. (a real estate brokerage), brought an action in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec against Viet Minh Tue Nguyen. They alleged that the defendant, whom they described as having been "engaged as an accountant," had abused their trust by deliberately failing to file their tax returns for the 2021, 2022, and 2023 fiscal years. The plaintiffs were represented by Phon Chau Tan ("Tan"), who served as their president.

The claim was initially filed for $15,000, covering both the $10,000 cash payment made to the defendant on February 28, 2022, and amounts related to inconveniences, penalties, and dealings with Revenu Québec and the Canada Revenue Agency. At a case management conference held on December 15, 2025, the claim was reduced to $8,800. At trial, the amount was further reduced by deducting $393.52 and $766.67 referenced in exhibit P-11, and Tan declared she was no longer claiming penalties related to the 2023 tax year.

Contractual arrangement and obligations at issue

There was no formal written contract between the parties. The defendant, who is not a licensed accountant but rather a telecommunications technician, had been preparing tax returns for the plaintiffs since approximately 2015 or 2016. He also prepared returns for Tan personally and, according to Tan, for seven other members of her family. The arrangement was entirely informal, with no written retainer or invoice on record to define the scope or compensation for the services provided.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court found that the defendant was not a professional accountant — he was a telecommunications technician who had been informally assisting the plaintiffs with their tax filings. The defendant testified that beginning in 2021, he noticed that the volume of invoices provided by Tan appeared to be fabricated — invoices intended to inflate renovation expenses and reduce taxable income. He referred the court to text messages exchanged with Tan (exhibit D-1), including messages from April 16, 2021, in which Tan appeared to solicit false renovation invoices, asking the defendant if he could find such documents and offering to pay him for doing so. The defendant testified: "From that moment, I no longer want to do them… because it is illegal… I do not agree… I do not want to be involved in this operation."

The court noted that Tan had known since at least April 2021 that the defendant was no longer filing the plaintiffs' tax returns. She also received numerous assessment notices (exhibits P-8 to P-21), one of which was dated November 4, 2022, confirming the outstanding filings. Despite this, the plaintiffs did not engage a licensed accountant until 2024. The court held that this delay was attributable solely to Tan and her companies, not to the defendant.

Regarding the $10,000 cash payment made on February 28, 2022, the court observed that $3,700 had already been reimbursed to Tan by the defendant at the December 15, 2025 case management conference, without admission of liability, by way of a cheque issued on the spot. Tan had acknowledged at both the case management conference and at trial that the $10,000 payment was made for the preparation of her own personal tax return and those of several family members — not solely for the plaintiff companies. Given the absence of any invoice and Tan's own admissions, the court rejected the claim for the remaining balance.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the defendant's fault on a balance of probabilities. Because no fault was proven, the court declined to consider the issue of damages. The defendant, Viet Minh Tue Nguyen, was the successful party. The claim was dismissed in its entirety, with court costs of $237 awarded against the plaintiffs.