Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue over whether the subcontractor, Aimen Guediri, properly performed eco-energy evaluations in accordance with article 2100 C.c.Q. and the “usages et règles de leur art.”
• Key factual dispute on the quality and integrity of airtightness tests, including alleged fabrication or reuse of photos and alteration of metadata to make it appear that post-work tests were completed.
• Critical evidentiary weight placed on E3R’s internal verification report and on Guediri’s own admission that he modified figures in at least 13 evaluations to secure government subsidies for clients.
• Scope and quantum of E3R’s right to retain amounts and claim damages based on errors, omissions, delays and reputational harm arising from deficient evaluations and follow-up with clients.
• Disagreement over entitlement to performance bonuses for files delivered late and whether E3R proved that most bonus-bearing files were unreliable, incomplete or erroneous.
• Determination of mutual monetary claims, set-off (compensation) and partial success of both principal claim and counterclaim, leading to a net award in favour of the subcontractor.

Factual background

The dispute arises out of a commercial relationship between Aimen Guediri, an energy-efficiency evaluator, and Daniel A. Perreault Expert-Conseil Inc., doing business as Énergie 3R (E3R). E3R operates in engineering and construction project management and was retained by the Quebec Ministry of the Environment, the Fight Against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (MELCCFP) to carry out eco-energy evaluations in support of a financial assistance program for energy-improving renovations. As part of this mandate, E3R engaged Guediri, from 2022 to 2024, as a subcontractor to perform energy evaluations (Évaluations) for E3R’s clients so they could qualify for MELCCFP subsidies. Guediri used the MELCCFP platform to receive appointments, communicate with E3R’s clients and file completed evaluations. The platform generated invoices in his name every two weeks, which MELCCFP paid to E3R; E3R would then remit the corresponding amounts to Guediri. In April 2024, E3R informed its collaborators, including Guediri, that it would conduct a quality control review of the services rendered. Following that review, E3R disputed a large portion of Guediri’s work and, instead of paying a substantial invoice he issued, asserted that various deficiencies and professional faults justified both withholding payment and seeking damages.

The principal claim: unpaid fees for evaluations

Guediri’s principal claim was for 13,026.67 $, representing the unpaid balance of his services for 75 evaluations invoiced as of 29 April 2024. These files had been completed for E3R’s clientele within the MELCCFP subsidy framework, with the amounts channelled through the ministry’s platform and ultimately payable by E3R to him. E3R denied liability for the invoiced balance. It alleged that, following its quality control exercise on a series of evaluations performed by Guediri in April and May 2024, it discovered serious problems in methodology, completeness and reliability, particularly regarding the required airtightness (infiltrometry) tests before and after renovation work. On that basis, E3R refused to pay the April 2024 invoice and later issued its own “invoice” back to Guediri, effectively asserting a right of set-off and damages that would negate his claim.

The counterclaim: alleged negligence and misrepresentation

Beyond contesting the claim, E3R filed a counterclaim. It sought damages under several heads: amounts to compensate for defects, negligence and alleged “manœuvres dolosives” (deceitful conduct) in Guediri’s evaluations; reimbursement of subsidies that E3R said it had to pay directly to two of its clients because of Guediri’s errors; a reserve for possible future claims by clients; and a significant sum for general damages, trouble, inconvenience and time lost rectifying defective work. In concrete terms, E3R detailed particular files where, it alleged, Guediri had billed for an evaluation on a building that was not subsidy-eligible; mishandled client coordination and follow-up, forcing E3R to step in to finalize files; and committed modelling errors that required additional corrective work and incurred extra costs. It also targeted the performance bonus structure, seeking to claw back bonuses of 40 $ per file on numerous evaluations it claimed were either late or not properly completed, especially where quality concerns overlapped with timeliness.

Legal framework and burden of proof

The court applied general principles of Quebec civil and contractual liability, focusing particularly on article 2100 of the Civil Code of Québec, which imposes on a contractor or service provider duties to act in the best interests of the client, with prudence and diligence, and in accordance with the “usages et règles de leur art,” and to ensure the work is contractually compliant. The case was adjudicated under the small claims rules in the Civil Division of the Court of Québec, with the ordinary civil burden of proof: each party had to establish its claims by a preponderance of evidence. That meant that Guediri needed to prove he was entitled to payment for the evaluations in question, whereas E3R had to show that his services were not rendered in line with professional standards and that it was entitled to retain amounts or recover damages. The judge relied on established authority explaining that civil responsibility turns on what is more probable than not, and that the evidence must be clear and convincing to meet the balance of probabilities standard.

Findings on the quality of the evaluations and alleged misconduct

A central evidentiary turning point was Guediri’s own admission at trial. He acknowledged that, in at least 13 files reviewed by E3R, he had modified figures in the evaluations in order to ensure that clients would qualify for government financial assistance. This admission seriously undermined both his credibility and the reliability of his work across the dossiers examined by E3R in spring 2024. The court accepted E3R’s verification report, which concluded that in a significant portion of paired “before” and “after” dossiers, at least one airtightness test had not been performed, particularly post-renovation tests where only a heat pump had been replaced. The report further showed that, in each such case, at least one photo had its name changed and/or metadata altered to conceal that no post-work test had actually been conducted. The judge also found that, for all the files E3R checked, Guediri performed only pre-work airtightness tests and not post-work tests, despite representing otherwise in the documentation. In addition, the evidence showed that he reused the same pre-work photo across multiple files and passed it off as proof of post-work testing. These practices were held to be contrary to professional norms, misleading to clients and harmful to E3R’s professional reputation with both its clientele and the MELCCFP. The court emphasised that E3R faced potential liability towards clients and the ministry if it had not intervened to redo, complete and properly document the deficient evaluations.

Specific file-based deductions and corrections

From these general findings, the court examined in detail the monetary consequences for individual files. For a set of dossiers where airtightness tests were not done or not done reliably, but were nevertheless billed, the court accepted that E3R had to redo the work and was entitled to retain 3,000 $ as the cost of performing those tests again. For two client files with poor follow-up and incomplete service on Guediri’s part, E3R had initially retained 400 $. The court reduced that retention to 280 $, aligning it with the amounts actually billed by Guediri for those specific dossiers, and confirming E3R’s right to keep that sum because it had to complete the work in his stead. For three other files involving modelling errors (including an unrealistic airtightness test), E3R’s retention of 690 $, 100 $ and 100 $ respectively was upheld. The judge found that these cases required extra effort and time from a new representative to correct errors and complete the subsidies process, including situations where clients experienced excessive delays (in one case, a 10-month delay in obtaining the subsidy), harming E3R’s reputation and justifying compensation.

Performance bonuses and delayed files

A significant portion of the monetary dispute concerned performance bonuses of 40 $ per file, paid when evaluations were completed within 15 days. E3R argued that, after checking all of Guediri’s 2023–2024 files, it discovered many were submitted late and that bonuses should be clawed back. The court accepted in part that bonuses could not logically be maintained where the underlying evaluations were unreliable, incomplete or erroneous. Specifically, the judge found that in at least 26 dossiers, Guediri had failed to properly complete the evaluations, and it would be inconsistent to award a performance bonus for that work. As a result, E3R was allowed to retain 1,040 $ (26 files at 40 $ each). However, for another 150 files in which bonuses had been paid, the court held that E3R had not adequately proven, with concrete documents and convincing evidence, that these dossiers were both late and defective. Without such proof, a retroactive clawback of 6,000 $ in bonuses for the remaining 150 files was not justified. This significantly reduced the scope of E3R’s financial retention on that head.

Overall accounting between the parties on the principal claim

After reviewing all the file-specific items, the court determined that E3R was justified in retaining a total of 5,210 $ plus taxes, amounting to 5,990.20 $ with taxes included, out of what it owed to Guediri, rather than the full 13,026.67 $ that it had refused to pay. The effect of this conclusion was that, on the principal claim, E3R still owed Guediri 7,036.47 $. In other words, while the court recognised serious faults by Guediri and upheld multiple deductions and corrections claimed by E3R, it did not accept that these completely wiped out his entitlement to payment for the work that was properly done.

Assessment of the counterclaim for damages

On the counterclaim, the court drew distinctions between proved and speculative losses. It found that E3R had indeed paid two of its clients directly—125 $ in one case and 750 $ in another—to compensate for subsidies that were lost or refused because of errors attributable to Guediri, such as a faulty airtightness test and inadequate photographic documentation of Energy Star-rated components. These two amounts, totalling 875 $, were awarded in full. With respect to broader claims for 1,500 $ in damages for defects, negligence and “manœuvres dolosives,” and 5,000 $ for trouble, inconvenience, loss of time and reputational harm, the court considered that the former was essentially encompassed within the latter. Evaluating the evidence of the verification work, the week-long effort needed to prepare the verification report, and the continuing corrective work on at least six additional dossiers, the judge was satisfied that E3R had suffered non-trivial, non-speculative losses in the form of time, resources and reputational impact. Exercising its discretion to assess unliquidated damages, the court fixed these general damages at 2,500 $. However, a further 1,500 $ claimed as a reserve for possible future claims by other clients was rejected as premature and purely hypothetical, since no additional clients had yet come forward or caused out-of-pocket loss. In the result, the counterclaim was allowed for a total of 3,375 $, and all other items not specifically granted were dismissed for lack of proof on the balance of probabilities.

Final outcome and net monetary award

Summarising the mutual claims, the principal action was allowed in part for 7,036.47 $, and the counterclaim was allowed in part for 3,375 $. The court ordered legal compensation between these two amounts, resulting in a net sum payable by E3R to Guediri. After set-off, Daniel A. Perreault Expert-Conseil Inc., doing business as Énergie 3R, was condemned to pay Aimen Guediri 3,661.47 $, with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from the date of the demand letter (4 July 2024). No judicial costs were awarded, the court noting the mixed success of both sides and the particular facts of the case. In practical terms, while the court recognised serious professional faults on Guediri’s part and granted E3R substantial deductions and damages, the net successful party is Guediri, who emerges with a monetary award of 3,661.47 $ plus applicable interest and additional indemnity, with no quantifiable costs otherwise ordered.