Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Prescription was the threshold issue: RHST filed its claim on June 5, 2025, more than three years after its damage became known on June 3, 2022, so the action was time-barred under article 2925 C.c.Q.
• RHST presented no evidence that Dunton Rainville committed any fault in managing the Superior Court file opposing Tomahawk and RHST.
• A June 9, 2022 Superior Court judgment had already rejected RHST's motion to dismiss and declare Tomahawk's proceeding abusive.
• Because RHST was not a party to the Transaction between Tomahawk and EMC, its argument that Dunton unduly delayed the homologation application was unfounded.
• Evidence showed RHST did not prove Dunton knew a delay could cause the loss of Thrive's financing, and Thrive's own email indicated the investment had become "in-kind" rather than lost.
• No proof was offered that the legal fees RHST incurred in the Superior Court file were unjustified.

Facts of the case

In Superior Court file 500-17-118890-212, Tomahawk Safety LLC claimed nearly $300,000 from RHST Industries inc., Omar Joseph Alpark, Express MED Canada inc. (EMC) and 9317-5206 Québec inc. Tomahawk had purchased personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic to sell to EMC, which was to resell it to Canadian and Québec health authorities, with Mr. Alpark acting as intermediary. Tomahawk ordered equipment from BreatheSafely and paid by bank transfer, but during the payment transmission period BreatheSafely sold part of the order to a third party, entitling Tomahawk to a partial refund. Mr. Alpark, passing himself off as an authorized representative of Tomahawk, obtained the refund from BreatheSafely and asked RHST to open an account to receive the sum. RHST then remitted the money to Mr. Alpark, knowing or having to know it belonged to Tomahawk. Tomahawk's proceeding was served on November 4, 2021. On May 24, 2022, a Transaction (settlement) was concluded between Tomahawk and EMC, and Tomahawk discontinued its claim against RHST on June 6, 2022, filing its application to homologate the Transaction on December 21, 2022. RHST later sued Dunton Rainville s.e.n.c.r.l., the law firm that represented Tomahawk, alleging the firm unduly delayed filing the homologation application, knowing or having to know this would cause RHST to lose a financing opportunity from Thrive SVG (agreed January 7, 2022, withdrawn June 3, 2022), an $18,750 investment from Technologies du développement durable Canada, and $20,703.93 in unnecessary legal fees. RHST reduced its claim to $15,000 to benefit from the small claims rules under article 538 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Tomahawk did not contest the claim, the parties having informed the Court that it had gone bankrupt.

Legal provisions and defences at issue

Dunton's principal defence rested on article 2925 C.c.Q., which sets a general three-year prescription period, arguing that RHST's claim filed on June 5, 2025 was time-barred. Subsidiarily, Dunton argued that RHST neither alleged nor proved any professional fault that would justify a damages award. Also engaged were the burden-of-proof rules in articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q., which require each party to prove the facts underlying its claims on a balance of probabilities, and article 340 C.p.c., which entitles the successful party to legal costs.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Magali Lewis first held that the action was prescribed. The three-year period began when RHST knew with sufficient precision its complaints against Dunton and Tomahawk and the nature of its damage, which occurred on June 3, 2022, when Thrive withdrew its financing because of the lawsuit and RHST consequently lost the possibility of the government subsidy; any fees incurred before that date were likewise known by then. Filed on June 5, 2025, the claim was out of time, and RHST did not invoke any impossibility to act sooner. The Court then found no fault by Dunton. RHST presented no evidence of fault in the firm's management of the Superior Court file, nor evidence that Tomahawk's proceeding was abusive — indeed, a June 9, 2022 judgment had rejected RHST's motion to dismiss and for a declaration of abuse. The claim of undue delay in seeking homologation was ill-founded because RHST was not a party to the Transaction; as far as RHST was concerned, the litigation ended with the discontinuance filed June 6, 2022. RHST made no apparent effort to have Thrive revisit or suspend its decision, and did not prove Dunton knew a delay could jeopardize the financing. Moreover, Thrive's email indicated the parties had agreed before June 3, 2022 that the investment would be "in-kind" rather than financial, so the investment changed in nature rather than being lost. Given these answers, the Court did not need to decide the quantum question, though it noted RHST submitted no proof that its legal fees were unjustified, considering the role it accepted in transferring Tomahawk's money to Mr. Alpark.

Ruling and outcome

The Court dismissed RHST's claim in its entirety, leaving Dunton Rainville as the successful party. Applying article 340 C.p.c., the Court condemned RHST Industries inc. to pay Dunton Rainville $237 in legal costs, representing the amount the firm paid to file its contestation.