Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• DHL Express (Canada) ltée claimed $82,481.66 in unpaid invoices from its former client 9622225 Canada inc. and from James Campagna.
• Neither defendant appeared at the hearing, and the $80,000 counterclaim of 9622225 Canada inc. was dismissed because no evidence was presented to support it.
• Invoices, account statements, and proofs of delivery filed by DHL established the debt on a balance of probabilities.
• Contractual interest of 1.8% per month (26.95% per year) applied under clause 11 of the January 28, 2021 agreement signed by Mr. Campagna.
• Personal liability of Mr. Campagna was based on contractual interference constituting an extracontractual fault under article 1457 C.c.Q., not on lifting the corporate veil.
• Both applications for a declaration of abuse of process — Mr. Campagna's claim for $15,000 and DHL's claim for $5,000 — were dismissed.

Facts of the case

DHL Express (Canada) ltée (DHL) is a logistics company offering local and international shipping services. 9622225 Canada inc. (Canada inc.) was a client of DHL, and James Campagna acted as an administrator of Canada inc. DHL claimed $82,481.66 from Canada inc. and Mr. Campagna for unpaid invoices relating to deliveries made in 2021 and 2022. Canada inc. filed a counterclaim against DHL for $80,000, comprising $30,000 in lost profit and $50,000 in material damages. Both Canada inc. and Mr. Campagna were absent at the hearing, and the Court of Québec proceeded in their absence. Since no evidence was administered in support of the counterclaim, the Tribunal dismissed it. The Tribunal was also seized of two applications for a declaration of abuse of process: one by Mr. Campagna claiming $15,000 from DHL ($5,000 in damages and $10,000 in extrajudicial fees), and one by DHL claiming $5,000 in extrajudicial fees from the defendants.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

Two clauses of the letter of agreement dated January 28, 2021, signed by Mr. Campagna as representative of Canada inc., were central. Clause 11 set out the customer payment terms, providing for freight payment terms of 14 days and stipulating that if the customer failed to pay an invoice in full when due, interest calculated at the rate of 1.8% per month (an effective rate of 26.95% per annum) would accrue and be payable to DHL on all outstanding amounts. Clause 5 of the same contract provided that the DHL account could not be used by third parties.

The court's reasoning and analysis

On the principal claim, DHL bore the burden of proving its claim on a balance of probabilities under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec. At the hearing, DHL produced all invoices issued to Canada inc., account statements, and proofs of delivery, totalling $82,481.66. The Tribunal concluded that the preponderant evidence showed DHL had rendered the invoiced services, and that Canada inc. was bound to pay this sum with interest at the contractually agreed rate of 1.8% per month (26.95% per year). Regarding Mr. Campagna, the Tribunal held there was no basis to lift the corporate veil, as he was an administrator of Canada inc. only from November 10, 2017 to November 11, 2021, while the disputed invoices concerned shipments made between November 15, 2021 and January 2022. His personal liability could, however, be engaged under article 1457 C.c.Q. for an extracontractual fault through contractual interference, which arises when a third party incites, aids, or participates in the violation of a contract. Applying the criteria developed by the Court of Appeal in Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. c. Simms Sigal & Co. Ltd., 2020 QCCA 1331 — knowledge of the contractual rights, incitement or participation in the violation of the contractual obligations, and bad faith or disregard for the interests of others — the Tribunal found that Mr. Campagna undoubtedly knew of the contract, having signed it himself. Testimony from the DHL account manager established that Mr. Campagna was the account's sole point of contact, and Mr. Campagna admitted in his pre-trial examination of February 28, 2023 that, despite the end of his involvement with Canada inc., he continued to use its DHL account to make shipments for the benefit of other entities belonging to him, knowingly, and did so because it allowed him to benefit from a good credit history. The Tribunal saw in this a desire to take advantage of a credit facility without regard for the contract, noted that neither Mr. Campagna nor any of the entities for which he acted paid the invoices despite using the services, and concluded that he could not have been unaware of the significant risk of prejudice to DHL. All criteria being met, his extracontractual fault engaged his personal liability toward DHL. As for the abuse of process applications, the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Campagna's application in light of its conclusions on the merits, and dismissed DHL's application — presented verbally at the hearing — because it had not been served on the defendants, who were absent and had no knowledge of it.

Ruling and outcome

In a judgment rendered on June 11, 2026 by the Honourable Mélanie Sauriol, J.C.Q., the Tribunal granted DHL's originating application, making DHL Express (Canada) ltée the successful party. It ordered 9622225 Canada inc. and James Campagna to pay DHL the sum of $82,481.66, with interest at the monthly rate of 1.8% (26.95% per year) running from the expiry of a 14-day period following the due date of each invoice. The counterclaim of 9622225 Canada inc. was dismissed, as were both applications for a declaration of abuse of process, and legal costs were awarded in favour of DHL Express (Canada) ltée.