Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute centres on whether a custom furniture maker breached its contract by never producing a paid-for kitchen countertop.
   
• A default judgment was issued because the defendant filed no contestation and did not appear at the hearing.
   
• Compensatory damages required the court to assess loss of time, stress, and lost enjoyment without corroborating defence evidence.
   
• Punitive damages were sought based on an alleged pattern of similar conduct toward other customers, but no supporting evidence was before the court.
   
• Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec governed the additional indemnity applied to the monetary award.
   
• Legal costs, including registered-mail expenses for the demand letter, were awarded alongside the substantive damages.
   

Facts of the case

In March 2024, Louis Paquet hired Ébénisterie Giroux & Fils Inc. to build a custom kitchen countertop for $780 plus taxes. He paid a $390 deposit, but the company never delivered the countertop as agreed, leaving him without a functioning kitchen counter and prompting him to purchase a replacement island. Paquet sent a demand letter on November 1, 2024, giving the company ten days to respond; it did not. He then filed a small claims action seeking reimbursement of his deposit, $934.15 in compensatory damages covering his lost time, stress, and half the cost of the replacement island, and $500 in punitive damages, alleging the company had failed at least five other customers in similar fashion. Ébénisterie Giroux never contested the claim and did not appear at the hearing, so the matter proceeded on an undefended basis.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Because Ébénisterie Giroux filed no defence, the case turned on statutory burden-of-proof rules rather than contested contractual terms. Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec place the burden on the claimant to prove his allegations on a balance of probabilities, even where the claim is undefended. The court also applied article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, which governs the additional indemnity added to a monetary award from the date specified in the judgment. On the punitive damages claim, the court considered the general Quebec consumer-protection principle — illustrated in Richard v. Time Inc. — that such damages are meant to punish and deter conduct that is intentional, malicious, vexatious, or marked by serious carelessness toward consumer obligations.

Reasoning and analysis

With no evidence or argument from the defence, the court accepted Paquet's uncontradicted testimony and documentary evidence establishing that Ébénisterie Giroux failed to build the countertop it had been paid to make. On the deposit, the court found the party who paid the $390 was entitled to get it back for a product never received; notably, the judgment itself names "M. Giroux" as the party entitled to this reimbursement, which is inconsistent with the rest of the decision identifying Paquet as the deposit-payer and claimant — a discrepancy in the source text that is flagged here rather than resolved. On compensatory damages, the court exercised its discretion to award a lump sum rather than the itemized $934.15 requested, settling on $200 for the loss of time, stress, and inconvenience Paquet experienced, without breaking out separate amounts for the replacement island or the demand-letter costs claimed. On punitive damages, the court accepted the legal principle that such damages punish and deter serious misconduct, but found the evidence submitted did not sufficiently establish the alleged pattern of repeated conduct toward other customers, and declined to award the $500 sought.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted Paquet's claim in part. Ébénisterie Giroux & Fils Inc. was ordered to pay Louis Paquet $590 — reflecting the $390 deposit refund plus $200 in compensatory damages — with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec running from November 12, 2024. The court separately ordered $131.80 in legal costs, covering court filing fees and registered-mail expenses for the demand letter. The punitive damages claim was dismissed for insufficient evidence.