Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Golden Castle Group inc. sought $2,636.96 from Zeynab Tabarzadi for services managing Airbnb rentals of her apartment.
   
• Tabarzadi disputed the claim, maintaining that any commission owed to Golden was to be calculated on profits, not gross rental income.
   
• No written agreement existed between the parties setting out the compensation structure for Golden's services.
   
• Summary tables produced at trial contained unexplained figures that could not be reconciled with the underlying payment records.
   
• Testimony described a $1,316.19 payment as an error, but the evidence supporting that explanation was incomplete.
   
• Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec placed the burden of proof on Golden to substantiate its claim.
   

Facts of the case

Golden Castle Group inc. ("Golden") sued Zeynab Tabarzadi in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec for $2,636.96, an amount later increased from an initial claim of $2,053.98. The dispute arose from an arrangement under which Golden managed the rental of Tabarzadi's Montreal apartment through Airbnb. In 2023, after Tabarzadi's employment with Grannymeal ended, the company's owner, Seyededris Ghalishoorani, suggested she generate income by renting her apartment on Airbnb and offered to manage the rentals through Golden, another company he owned. Tabarzadi agreed, but the parties never documented the terms of Golden's compensation in writing. Rentals began in May 2023 without Tabarzadi obtaining any required permit, and in violation of a lease clause prohibiting Airbnb rentals; her landlord terminated her lease upon learning of the arrangement. Golden issued three invoices for May, June, and July 2023 totaling $2,636.96, none of which explained how the amounts were calculated.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No written contract governed the relationship between Golden and Tabarzadi. Ghalishoorani testified that the oral understanding entitled Golden to 25% of the rents collected, with cleaning fees and Airbnb charges to be borne by Tabarzadi. Tabarzadi testified that the agreed commission was instead 25% of profits, and that the rentals generated no profit for her. Articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec were central to the court's analysis: article 2803 places the burden of proving a claim on the party asserting it, while article 2804 sets the evidentiary standard as proof that renders a fact more probable than not.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Huppé found that Golden's summary tables, which purported to break down "total payout," "host fee," "CF," "GCG Com," and "GCG total share" figures for each month, did not allow the court to understand how the claimed amounts were calculated. The tables identifying "host fee" and cleaning fee ("CF") amounts lacked supporting documentation. A separate document listing fourteen Airbnb payments to Tabarzadi totaling $3,807.57 matched the aggregate "total payout" figures but could not be reconciled payment-by-payment with the summary tables. No evidence established the number or duration of the rentals Golden managed. Ghalishoorani testified that $1,316.19 of the $3,807.57 received by Tabarzadi had been paid to her in error, relating to a substitute apartment rental, but the court found this evidence incomplete, noting that no payment of that exact amount appeared among the fourteen listed transactions. Given the absence of any written agreement and the conflicting testimony on how compensation was to be calculated, the court held it could not determine whether Golden's proposed calculation reflected the actual understanding between the parties, and that Golden bore the consequences of failing to document the arrangement or support its figures with adequate evidence.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed Golden's claim in its entirety, without legal costs, finding that Golden had failed to meet its burden under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec to prove the basis and accuracy of the amounts it sought. Tabarzadi was the successful party. As the claim was dismissed outright, no monetary award, cost order, or other relief was granted to either party.