Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A residential property owner sought reimbursement from a cleaning company for work she claimed was never authorized.
   
• Article 2107 of the Civil Code of Québec governs contracts based on a cost estimate, requiring the contractor to justify any price increase.
   
• Both parties disputed whether the service agreement was an estimate-based contract under article 2107 or a value-based contract under article 2106.
   
• Credible witness testimony established that an hourly estimate had been communicated before the contract was signed.
   
• Qualinet failed to prove that the additional air filtration work was unforeseeable at the time of contracting.
   
• The court found the owner had not been consulted about the second round of invoiced work.
   

Facts of the case

10149829 Canada inc. (the Owner) owns a residential building in the Gatineau area. On October 16, 2023, a minor fire occurred on the stove of a tenant, Mohamed Amadou. The Tenant contacted Groupe Bélisle inc., doing business as Qualinet, to clean up after he had used a powder extinguisher to put out the fire. Qualinet issued an invoice dated October 31, 2023, for $2,451.96 for cleaning services and installation of a filtration device. The Owner paid the invoice in full but under protest, disputing its value. She later claimed reimbursement of $1,819.56, arguing that work performed beyond an initial estimate had not been authorized.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The dispute centered on articles 2106 and 2107 of the Civil Code of Québec. Article 2106 provides that the price of work or services is determined by the contract, usage, or law, or by the value of the work performed. Article 2107 applies where the price has been the subject of an estimate at contract formation, in which case the contractor must justify any price increase, and the client is only liable for increases resulting from unforeseeable work. The back of the written contract stated that Qualinet's work would be billed on a time-and-materials basis according to its hourly rate sheet. The Owner argued the contract was estimate-based under article 2107, while Qualinet maintained it was value-based under article 2106. Article 2102 C.C.Q., requiring a service provider to inform the client of the nature and expected duration of the work, was also considered.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found an ambiguity between the parties' competing versions of the contract's nature and undertook to interpret it. The Owner's representative and the Tenant testified as credible witnesses, both confirming they had received a time estimate from Qualinet's representatives before the contract was signed. Qualinet's representative at the hearing had not been involved in the October 2023 discussions and could not testify to their content. The court noted it was logical for the Owner to seek a cost estimate before authorizing work on a minor loss, and that Qualinet's obligation under article 2102 C.C.Q. to inform the client of the scope and duration of work supported the Owner's version of events. No witness contradicted the Owner's or the Tenant's account, leading the court to conclude the contract was estimate-based under article 2107 C.C.Q. On the question of the additional work, the court found Qualinet had returned to the premises after its own inspection and, after consulting the Tenant, installed an air purifier, adding $1,392.44 before taxes for that day's work alone, plus $190.13 for supervisor hours the Owner also disputed. The court held that under article 2107 C.C.Q., Qualinet bore the burden of justifying this increase as resulting from unforeseeable work, and that such unforeseeability must be exceptional in nature. Qualinet's own expert evidence described the air filtration installation as a normal step in addressing extinguisher dust contamination, undermining any claim of unforeseeability. The court found the Owner was never consulted about this second round of work.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted the claim of 10149829 Canada inc., finding that Qualinet had not met its burden of justifying the additional charges under article 2107 C.C.Q. and that the Owner had proven the disputed work totaled $1,819.56 in fees and taxes. The court ordered Groupe Bélisle inc. to pay 10149829 Canada inc. $1,819.56, with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.C.Q. from January 24, 2024, along with judicial costs of $182 payable to 10149829 Canada inc.