Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Bhushan Bhuvanagiri sought reimbursement of a $12,000 deposit paid for renovation work that Construction G. D'Ambrosio & Fils inc. never began.
   
• Construction G. D'Ambrosio & Fils inc. filed a summary contestation but failed to appear at the hearing, leading the court to proceed by default under article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
   
• Evidence established that the plaintiff, at times through his wife, made repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain either performance of the work or a refund.
   
• Proceedings were suspended from April 14, 2023 to August 7, 2025 due to the defendant's insolvency proposal process.
   
• Several ancillary claims — for demand-letter fees, credit-line interest, and separate repair costs — were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
   
• Additional compensation of $500 was granted for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the defendant's default.
   

Facts of the case

Bhushan Bhuvanagiri paid a $12,000 deposit to Construction G. D'Ambrosio & Fils inc. for renovation work at his residence, based on a quote dated June 5, 2019. He made a $5,000 payment on July 22, 2019, followed by a $7,000 payment on September 27, 2019. Despite numerous follow-ups, the defendant never began the agreed work, prompting the plaintiff to seek reimbursement of his deposit. The claim, filed with the Court of Quebec's Small Claims Division, was suspended between April 14, 2023 and August 7, 2025 after the defendant gave notice of its intention to file a proposal in insolvency; the suspension lifted once the trustee was discharged. The defendant filed a summary contestation but did not attend the June 3, 2026 hearing, so the court proceeded by default under article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Central to the dispute was the June 5, 2019 quote describing the renovation work the defendant had agreed to perform. Because that work was never undertaken, the plaintiff argued he was entitled to a full refund of his deposit. The proceeding also engaged article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permitted the court to rule by default given the defendant's absence despite having contested the claim on paper.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that the plaintiff proved both the amounts he had paid and the defendant's failure to perform the work or return the funds. It noted that the plaintiff, at times through his wife, made repeated efforts to obtain either performance or reimbursement, without success, and that the file contained no valid explanation for the defendant's refusal to return the $12,000 deposit. The court also reviewed three additional amounts the plaintiff sought. It declined to award $25.96 in claimed demand-letter transmission fees and $837.88 in claimed credit-line interest, in both cases because no supporting evidence was presented, though it confirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to legal interest and the additional indemnity from the date his claim was filed. It likewise declined to award $1,652.53 for repair work the plaintiff said was necessitated by the defendant's default, finding the evidence insufficient to connect that work to the default or to justify holding the defendant responsible for it — a conclusion reinforced by the fact that the contractor who performed the work and issued the invoice did not testify. However, the court accepted that the sustained efforts of the plaintiff and his wife to resolve the matter warranted compensation for lost time and inconvenience.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court partially allowed the claim, finding it well-founded for $12,500 — the $12,000 deposit plus $500 in compensation for trouble and inconvenience. It ordered Construction G. D'Ambrosio & Fils inc. to pay Bhushan Bhuvanagiri that amount, with legal interest and the additional indemnity running from August 18, 2020, the date the claim was filed, plus legal costs.