Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Pavage B.C. inc. sued Agrikom inc. for $15,000, alleging that repairs invoiced across three interventions on its 2008 Bobcat loader were never actually performed.
   
• Photographic comparison evidence formed the centrepiece of Pavage's claim, though the court found the images were taken at different angles, distances, and times, undermining any clear conclusions.
   
• Testimony from Pavage's expert, Alain Plante, was given little weight because he had not reviewed the invoices or file materials before forming his opinion.
   
• Corroborating invoices contemporaneous with each of Agrikom's three interventions supported the technician's detailed account of the work performed.
   
• Neither party could establish with certainty whether repairs from the earliest intervention had actually been carried out.
   
• Ultimately, the court held that Pavage failed to meet its burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, and dismissed the claim entirely.
   

Facts of the case

Pavage B.C. inc. owns a Bobcat-type compact loader manufactured in 2008. According to the judgment's opening account, the Bobcat began losing hydraulic oil in July 2023, prompting Pavage to retain Agrikom inc. to diagnose and repair the issue [the judgment's later analysis and the corroborating invoice instead date this first intervention to August 2, 2023 — the source is inconsistent on this point]. Agrikom performed a first intervention that failed to resolve the problem, which reappeared and led to a second intervention in May 2024, and ultimately a third in July 2024. At that third visit, Agrikom identified a sealing issue with the engine and provided Pavage with a repair quote, which Pavage refused. Pavage instead turned to a third-party shop, Hydraumax atelier d'usinage inc. Hydraumax's owner, Alain Plante, subsequently opined that Agrikom had never actually performed the repairs it billed for in July 2023 and May 2024. Acting on this opinion, Pavage's president, Antonio Calderone, claimed from Agrikom the cost of the Hydraumax repairs, additional expenses attributed to Agrikom's alleged inaction, and punitive damages, totalling $15,000. Agrikom disputed the claim, maintaining that it had genuinely performed all invoiced work according to professional standards.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The dispute centred on whether Agrikom had properly performed the repair services it invoiced to Pavage, engaging principles of contractual and extracontractual liability. The court relied on articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, which place the burden of proving facts supporting a claim on the party asserting a right, and require that this burden be met on a balance of probabilities. No specific written contract clause was in dispute; rather, the matter turned on whether the services described in Agrikom's invoices corresponded to work actually carried out.

Reasoning and analysis

Pavage's case rested primarily on two elements: Plante's opinion that the billed work was not performed, and a photo comparison suggesting that images provided by Agrikom depicted a different Bobcat than the one at issue. The court found the photo comparison inconclusive, noting the images were taken from different angles, covered different areas of the engine, were sometimes blurry, and were separated by many months of active use that could account for differences in rust and dirt. Agrikom's witnesses — dealership owner Martin Leclerc, service director Dominic Bérard, and shop manager Cédric Cadieux-Dionne — offered explanations for each discrepancy Calderone raised, including that a component Calderone identified as a grille was actually part of the cab structure, and that a filter he claimed was miscoloured was not visible in the photo at all. The court found their testimony clear, detailed, and consistent, giving it substantial weight. By contrast, Plante's opinion was found unreliable: he had not reviewed the case file or detailed invoices before forming his view, relied only on his own observations and Calderone's subjective account, and made an unsupported claim about the Bobcat's normal lifespan despite acknowledging he was not a Bobcat specialist. Cadieux-Dionne's account of each of the three interventions — including draining excess oil, adjusting and sealing the tunnel cover, replacing worn valve components, and later diagnosing an engine seal leak using dye and an ultraviolet lamp — was corroborated by invoices contemporaneous with each visit. The court also noted that a supplier Pavage consulted before Hydraumax, Trakto machinerie, had reached a similar diagnosis to Agrikom's, and that Hydraumax's own repairs failed to resolve the problem, requiring a second Hydraumax intervention in April 2025 addressing the very engine-seal issue Agrikom and Trakto had identified.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court concluded that Pavage failed to meet its burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that Agrikom had not performed the invoiced repairs or had committed any contractual or extracontractual fault. Finding that the preponderance of evidence instead showed Agrikom had properly carried out the agreed services, the court dismissed Pavage's claim in its entirety and ordered Pavage to pay Agrikom's legal costs in the amount of $374.