Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Proceeding by default, the Court heard the case after the plaintiffs failed to appear at the hearing.
   
• Absent any evidence from the plaintiffs, their claim for restitution of $3,352.66 was dismissed with legal costs.
   
• Termination of a service contract by the client was assessed under article 2129 C.C.Q., which requires payment of actual costs and expenses and the value of work performed before the end of the contract.
   
• Testimony from the defendant's president established that training, approved electronic mock-ups, and all elements for launching the website had been delivered.
   
• Quality of the finished work was noted by the Court, which found no basis for a price reduction because the work was complete at termination and the defendant realized no cost savings.
   
• Interest on the $3,350 cross-application was set to run from its filing date of December 27, 2024, since no formal notice had been sent.
   

Facts of the case

Stéphany Gauthier Courtier immobilier inc. and Stéphany Gauthier hired Pure Marketing inc., a firm specializing in web solutions for real estate brokerage, to build a complete high-end website. Half of the total cost was paid up front as a deposit. Dissatisfied with the services, the plaintiffs terminated the signed contract as of right and sued in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec for restitution of the $3,851.66 they had paid ($3,350 plus sales taxes), less $500 they valued as services rendered. Their claim was for $3,352.66 [as stated in the decision; $3,851.66 less $500 equals $3,351.66].

Pure Marketing contested the claim, maintaining that every service had been delivered, and filed a cross-application for the $3,350 balance owing, without regard to sales taxes, if applicable. When the plaintiffs did not attend the August 27, 2026 hearing, Justice Christian Gendron, J.C.Q., proceeded by default on a reasoned decision entered in the hearing minutes.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Article 2129 C.C.Q. governed the consequences of the termination. As summarized by the Court, it requires a client who terminates a service contract to pay the service provider, in proportion to the agreed price, the actual costs and expenses, the value of work performed before the end of the contract, and, where applicable, the value of property supplied. Interest at the legal rate was increased by the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.C.Q. No specific terms of the written contract (Exhibit P-4 / D-1) are quoted or discussed in the decision.

Reasoning and analysis

With no one appearing for the plaintiffs, no evidence supported the main claim, and it was dismissed with legal costs. On the cross-application, Pure Marketing's president, Chloé Raymond, travelled from Les Coteaux to testify. She established that all services had already been provided, including training, electronic mock-ups approved by Ms. Gauthier [spelled "Stéphanie Gauthier" at para. 6 of the decision], and everything needed to put the site online. Filed as Exhibits D-4 to D-9, the mock-ups covered the complete site, a real estate transactions section, a moving guide, a transition guide, a buying guide, and a children's games section. Justice Gendron observed that the work was of quality.

Ms. Raymond also confirmed that Pure Marketing saved no costs as a result of the termination, which came at the very end of the contract. Applying article 2129 C.C.Q., the Court found the work was complete on the termination date, leaving no basis for a reduction in the plaintiffs' favour. Because no formal notice had been sent, interest on the cross-application runs from its filing at the court office on December 27, 2024.

Ruling and overall outcome

Pure Marketing inc. prevailed on both claims: the main claim was dismissed and the cross-application granted, with legal costs for each. Stéphany Gauthier Courtier Immobilier inc. and Ms. Gauthier were ordered, solidarily, to pay Pure Marketing $3,350, with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.C.Q. from December 27, 2024. Total legal costs of $364 were also made payable solidarily in Pure Marketing's favour. No combined total of the principal, interest, and costs is stated in the judgment.