Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Catherine Dumas sought the return of a $5,000 deposit paid under a promise to purchase a lot from 9416-9778 Québec inc.
• Central to the dispute was a handwritten clause in the promise to purchase declaring the deposit non-refundable.
• A competing clause, added at Dumas's request, conditioned the purchase on the right to build in accordance with municipal standards.
• Discovery of wetlands covering approximately 40% of the lot — made the day after signing — triggered Dumas's withdrawal and refund demand.
• Under Article 1711 of the Civil Code of Québec, any amount paid on a promise of sale is presumed to be a deposit on the price, not a forfeitable sum.
• The court found that the "right to build" clause, drafted by the vendor's representative, must be interpreted in Dumas's favour, entitling her to a refund.

Facts of the case

On September 2, 2025, Catherine Dumas signed a promise to purchase a lot listed at $50,000 from 9416-9778 Québec inc. (the Company), paying a $5,000 deposit at signing. Before executing the agreement, Dumas told the Company's representative, Frédéric Pagé, that she wished to verify construction possibilities with the municipality. Pagé agreed and added a clause to the contract. The very next day, September 3, 2025, Dumas contacted the municipality and received an email confirming the presence of wetlands on the property. An attached map showed two wetland zones — one near the lake and a second covering a large portion of the lot's interior — together amounting to approximately 40% of the total area. The zone not affected by wetlands sat along the road's edge. That same day, Dumas called Pagé to report her findings and request a refund of her deposit. On September 8, 2025, she sent a formal demand letter by mail to both Pagé and the Company, which they received on September 10, 2025. On September 19, 2025, a biologist advised her that a summary wetlands report would cost approximately $2,300 and that any construction work in a wetland area would entail additional costs of approximately $10,000.

Contractual clauses at issue

The promise to purchase contained two handwritten provisions at the centre of the dispute. The first, concerning the deposit, read: "Acompte non remboursable l'acheteur aura c'est # de tx évitera de les débourser" — indicating that the deposit was non-refundable. The second, inserted in the "Other Conditions" section at Dumas's request, stated: "Droit de construire selon les norme municipal" — granting the buyer a right to build in accordance with municipal standards. The Company relied on the non-refundable clause to resist repayment, while Dumas argued that the right-to-build clause rendered her purchase conditional on municipal confirmation that construction was feasible.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court began by examining Article 1711 of the Civil Code of Québec, which presumes that any sum paid in connection with a promise of sale constitutes a deposit on the price — unless the contract expressly provides otherwise. Unlike the former arrhes (earnest money) regime under the Civil Code of Lower Canada, a deposit is not a mechanism allowing either party to walk away; its purpose is to partially secure the purchase price. The court noted, citing Tabagie Jacques (2000) inc. c. Tabagie Jacques (1985) inc., 2005 CanLII 6467 (QC CS), that a buyer may recover a deposit even where the failure to complete the sale is attributable to the buyer's own conduct — unless a contrary stipulation exists. The court also referenced the treatise Droit spécialisé des contrats by Denys-Claude Lamontagne and Bernard Larochelle (Éditions Yvon Blais, 1999), which confirms that where a sum constitutes a deposit, neither party may retain it as liquidated damages absent a specific agreement to that effect.

Turning to the specific clauses, the court acknowledged the non-refundable language but gave decisive weight to the right-to-build condition. Pagé himself confirmed that Dumas had asked to verify municipal construction requirements before signing, and that he had added the corresponding clause. The court held that this clause, drafted by the Company's own representative, must be interpreted in Dumas's favour. It further found that Pagé had not honoured the arrangement that gave Dumas the opportunity to validate construction feasibility before being bound. Dumas acted with speed: she obtained the municipal information the very next day and notified Pagé immediately.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court allowed Dumas's claim in full. 9416-9778 Québec inc. was ordered to pay Catherine Dumas $5,000, plus legal interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided under Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, both running from the date the demand letter was received — September 10, 2025. The Company was also ordered to pay $118 in court costs corresponding to Dumas's filing fee, as required under Article 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment was rendered by the Honourable Madeleine Aubé, J.C.Q., on May 14, 2026.