Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Soma Chauffage & Climatisation Plus inc. sued Léo Parent to recover an unpaid invoice for installing a multi-zone heat pump system at his property, which the court characterized as an action on account.
   
• The parties’ installation contract arose from a quote accepted by the defendant.
   
• Despite being called over the intercom, the defendant did not appear at the hearing.
   
• Testimonial and documentary evidence in the record satisfied the court that the plaintiff had met its burden of proof.
   
• Although the claim was granted only in part, the decision does not say which portion was refused or how much was originally claimed.
   
• One operative paragraph reverses the parties’ roles by directing the plaintiff to pay the defendant, which conflicts with the rest of the judgment.
   

Facts of the case

Léo Parent accepted a quote, and he and Soma Chauffage & Climatisation Plus inc. then entered into a contract for the installation of a multi-zone heat pump system at his property. After the installation was completed, Soma sent Parent an invoice that remained unpaid when the judgment was issued. Soma brought its claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec in the District of Laval, seeking payment for work performed under a service agreement. The court characterized the proceeding as an action on account. The decision does not state the contract price, the invoice amount, the installation date, or the amount Soma claimed.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No clause from the quote, contract, or invoice is quoted or paraphrased in the judgment. Its only legal reference is to the Civil Code of Québec, which it cites as the source of interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity added to the principal sum. No specific article number is given.

Reasoning and analysis

The court’s reasoning is brief. It relied on the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record and on Parent’s failure to appear at the September 21, 2026 hearing, even though he was called over the intercom. On that basis, it concluded that Soma had discharged its burden of proof. The judgment does not refer to any defence from Parent, and it does not explain why the claim was granted only in part.

Ruling and overall outcome

On September 23, 2026, the court granted Soma’s claim in part. Its order for the principal sum awards $13,544.20, with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under the Civil Code of Québec running from January 7, 2026. As written, however, that paragraph directs the plaintiff to pay the defendant. Read together with the finding that Soma met its burden and the separate order requiring Parent to pay Soma $382 in legal costs, the judgment points to Soma as the successful party. No calculation of the accrued interest and indemnity or combined total appears in the decision.