Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• International Development Corporation (Montreal) Ltd. (the Client) sued SR2 Groupe Énergies Service Inc. (the Supplier) in Québec small claims court for reimbursement of $7,921.06 charged to its Visa credit card for additional electrical work it says it never authorized.
• Central to the dispute was whether the Client consented, during a telephone conversation on or about February 10, 2025, to the installation of a transformer and to payment of the additional work on its credit card.
• Evidence showed the building's electrical panel was labelled 225 amperes but in fact supplied only 100 amperes, a defect discovered by the electrician only when connecting the new furnace on February 7, 2025.
• Under the balance of probabilities standard (art. 2803 C.c.Q.), the Court found the Client in all probability did accept the additional work, but the Supplier failed to disclose immediately that the February 7 furnace connection was only temporary.
• That omission breached the duty of good faith (art. 1375 C.c.Q.) and the duty to inform (art. 2104 C.c.Q.), depriving the Client of the chance to give informed consent and verify pricing, though the Supplier was entitled to charge for unforeseeable extra work under art. 2107 para. 2 C.c.Q.
• Responsibility for the cost of the additional work was split equally, with the Supplier ordered to pay the Client 50% of the amount disbursed.

Facts of the case

In early February 2025, the Supplier was contacted by Ultramar about a malfunctioning oil furnace at the Client's commercial building at 2670 Duchesne in Montréal. On or about February 3, 2025, a technician found the furnace dangerous and strongly recommended replacing the entire system. On or about February 5, 2025, a representative of the Supplier gave the Client a verbal quote of $8,400 plus taxes ($9,657.90) to replace the oil furnace with a new electric heating unit, and the Client signed a contract with Ultramar for that amount, taxes included. Before signing, the Supplier's representative confirmed that the building's electrical panel — labelled 225 amperes, sufficient for the new furnace requiring 100 amperes on its own — could accommodate the new unit. Given the winter urgency, Ultramar authorized the Supplier to deal directly with the Client, and the Supplier prepared an internal written quote dated February 5, 2025, which was never signed by or sent to the Client. The Client paid a $4,000 deposit by Visa over the telephone on February 5, and the furnace was installed on February 7, 2025, when the Client authorized payment of the $5,657.90 balance. During the connection, the electrician mandated by the Supplier discovered the panel actually supplied only 100 amperes, not 225, and made a temporary connection allowing only partial use of the heating system. The Supplier informed the Client of the capacity problem only on the following Monday, February 10, 2025, and never disclosed that the February 7 connection was temporary. According to the Supplier, the Client accepted during that call the additional work of $6,899.37 plus taxes ($7,921.05) and its payment by credit card, which the Client denied. On February 11, 2025, the Supplier charged the Client's card an additional $7,921.06, and on February 19, 2025, the electrician performed the work to optimize the panel to 225 amperes. Email exchanges between roughly February 24 and March 3, 2025 concerning a possible Hydro-Québec grant and a partial reimbursement led to no agreement. The Client sent a demand letter on May 23, 2025 and filed suit on July 9, 2025.

Contractual terms and legal provisions at issue

The original agreement was a turnkey, fixed-price project of $9,657.90 taxes included; the Client's counsel emphasized in a June 10, 2025 letter that the signed contract of sale was to be a "complete job in every respect, and a turn key installation." The dispute engaged several Civil Code of Québec provisions: article 2803 on the burden of proof by preponderance of evidence; article 1375, requiring good faith in the performance of obligations; article 2104, obliging a contractor to inform the client immediately of defects in goods supplied by the client; article 2107 paragraph 2, under which a client must pay a price increase only where it results from work or expenses unforeseeable by the contractor at the time of contracting; and article 1619 on the additional indemnity.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Yves Hamel, J.C.Q., first held that the Supplier committed no fault on or about February 5, 2025 in representing that the panel was adequate: its representative was justified in relying on the 225-ampere label, since only a certified electrician may open and verify a panel, and in the vast majority of cases such labels are accurate. The panel's defect was therefore not attributable to the Supplier, and because the amperage problem was unforeseeable at the time of contracting, the Supplier was justified under article 2107 paragraph 2 C.c.Q. in requiring additional payment despite the turnkey nature of the contract. The Court also found that, on the whole of the evidence, the Client in all probability accepted the additional work of $7,921.05 during the telephone call with the Supplier's representative, and that the work was genuinely necessary — the new furnace could not operate at the existing electrical entrance without a transformer. The $7,921.05 price was what the electrician billed the Supplier, with no profit margin added. Nevertheless, the Supplier committed a fault engaging its civil liability by failing to inform the Client without delay that the February 7 connection was temporary and that the furnace would not be fully functional, waiting until February 10 to raise the amperage problem. This omission contravened articles 1375 and 2104 C.c.Q. and presented the Client with a fait accompli, depriving it of the opportunity to give fully informed consent and to check the proposed price with other electricians. Given that conclusion on the sharing of responsibility, the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the Supplier validly debited the credit card.

Ruling and outcome

Weighing the Supplier's fault against the necessity and fair pricing of the work, the Tribunal apportioned the cost of the additional work equally between the parties, assessing the Supplier's liability at 50% of what the Client disbursed. The claim of International Development Corporation (Montreal) Ltd. was accordingly allowed in part, making the Client the successful party, and SR2 Groupe Énergies Service Inc. was ordered to pay it $3,960.53, with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from the May 23, 2025 demand letter, the whole with legal costs.