Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A building purchaser sought review of a special clerk’s default-judgment decision that had dismissed his entire small claim against an appliance manufacturer.
   
• Article 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure allowed the plaintiff to seek review, since the default-judgment exception applies only to defendants who failed to answer the summons.
   
• Case law remains divided on the standard for reviewing special clerk decisions, and the court treated review as akin to an appeal, applying reasonableness to the mixed questions of law and fact.
   
• New evidence, including a written statement from the seller’s president, the promise to purchase, and Electrolux’s own website pricing, made the special clerk’s decision manifestly unreasonable.
   
• Ownership of the dishwasher was established, the Consumer Protection Act’s legal warranties applied, and secondary evidence of value was permitted under article 2860 of the Civil Code of Québec.
   
• Punitive damages were reduced from the $1,000 sought to $500, given the relative importance of the matter and the deterrent effect of the judgment itself.
   

Facts of the case

On December 31, 2019, Alexandre Fallon bought a building whose interior had been completely renovated. According to the allegations in the proceedings, the sale included a dishwasher and a stove manufactured by Electrolux Canada Corporation. Operating defects were noticed some time after Fallon and his spouse began using the appliances. Fallon notified Electrolux, several communications followed, and Electrolux eventually sent a technician, whose intervention did not produce the desired results.

Fallon sued Electrolux in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, claiming $5,545 in his amended application: $3,385 for the depreciated value of the two appliances, $160 for the technician’s diagnostic fees, and $2,000 in punitive damages under the Consumer Protection Act. Although duly notified, Electrolux never filed a contestation and never came forward, despite receiving notices of hearing. Fallon proceeded by default on March 19, 2024. Two days later, the special clerk dismissed the claim in its entirety, finding that Fallon had not proven purchase or ownership of the appliances or their value when he took possession, that neither article 1458 of the Civil Code of Québec nor the Consumer Protection Act applied, and that no evidence supported the claim.

Fallon filed an application for review on April 11, 2024, amended on April 24, 2024. Because Electrolux had since repaired the stove, he reduced his claim at the hearing to $1,286.92 for the dishwasher’s depreciated value of $1,119.30 plus taxes, $160.95 in diagnostic fees, and $1,000 in punitive damages.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Article 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits review by a judge or the court of decisions of the special clerk, except judgments rendered by default for a defendant’s failure to answer the summons, participate in the case management conference, or defend on the merits. The application must state its grounds, be notified to the other parties, and be filed within 10 days of the contested decision; if the decision is reversed, matters are restored to their former state. Article 564 of the Code provides that small claims judgments are not subject to appeal or, except in certain cases, judicial review. On the merits, the court relied on the legal warranties under the Consumer Protection Act, though the decision does not identify the specific warranty provisions applied, and on article 2860 of the Civil Code of Québec regarding secondary evidence.

Reasoning and analysis

The court first confirmed that Fallon could seek review. Citing Créditmeubles.iom inc. c. Nobert, it explained that the Court of Appeal had confined the default-judgment exception in article 74 to defendants seeking review after failing to answer the summons, who must instead apply for revocation of the judgment. Fallon, as plaintiff, was not in that position.

Case law is split on the applicable standard, with three approaches identified in Lebeau c. Fortin: an appeal-like standard, a mixed standard borrowing from judicial review, and a majority view treating review as a broad power to remedy a special clerk’s error of principle or overriding error. Two more recent judgments held that no deference is owed, an approach also supported by the observation that a review application may be heard de novo. The court declined to revisit that debate but questioned whether an overly permissive approach to review could undermine the rule against appeals in small claims matters, asking whether the legislature intended a full retrial each time a dissatisfied plaintiff challenges a default decision, even one that merely reduces a single head of claim. It stated that the situation would merit legislative clarification.

Following Digital Shape Technologies inc. c. Walker, which it had applied in earlier decisions, the court held that review under article 74 resembles an appeal: correctness for questions of law and reasonableness, with a high degree of deference, for findings of fact. Since the case involved mixed questions of law and fact, reasonableness applied. The court also noted that a reviewing judge may, in certain circumstances, proceed as in a de novo hearing and consider new allegations.

Fallon filed new evidence before the court: a written statement in lieu of testimony dated September 8, 2025, from Yann Danis, president of 9366-2088 Québec inc., the company that sold the dishwasher with the renovated building, confirming the dishwasher was new; the bilateral promise to purchase signed by both parties, establishing the sale of the dishwasher; and an extract from Electrolux’s website advertising the dishwasher at $1,599 on or around the relevant date. In light of this evidence, the court found the special clerk’s decision manifestly unreasonable, while noting that the clerk would have been better equipped to assess the claim had this evidence been before him.

Ownership of the dishwasher was established and the Consumer Protection Act’s legal warranties applied. With no contestation from Electrolux, the evidence of the dishwasher’s value at acquisition, though imperfect, was acceptable and sufficient, and secondary evidence was permitted under article 2860 of the Civil Code of Québec. The court granted the $1,286.92 and $160.95 claims in full. Fallon justified his punitive damages claim by pointing to Electrolux’s numerous delays, if not obstinate refusal, to honour the applicable warranties. The court found the $1,000 sought too high and, in its discretion, set the amount at $500, taking into account the relative importance of the matter and the fact that the judgment itself promotes prevention and deterrence among merchants.

Ruling and overall outcome

In its September 18, 2026 judgment, the Court of Québec granted Fallon’s claim in part and revised the special clerk’s default judgment of March 21, 2024. Electrolux was ordered to pay Fallon $1,947.87, with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec from the date of the summons, together with legal costs. The amount of legal costs was not quantified in the decision.