Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Allocation of the burden of proof under articles 2803 and 1457 C.c.Q. in an extra-contractual liability claim for lost goods.
• Causal link analysis focusing on whether the primary cause of loss was the building’s administration/broker or the transport company’s faulty delivery.
• Evidentiary shortcomings in Nuline’s attempt to prove fault by the promoter (9367-7920 Québec inc.) and the broker (Lara Martin) rather than by its own carrier.
• Inconsistent and contradictory statements by the delivery driver, undermining Nuline’s theory that the defendants were at fault.
• Impact of an inaccurate email response from the broker on causation, and whether such misinformation can ground liability absent proof it was the determining cause of the loss.
• Effect of Nuline’s own decision not to pursue its carrier, and whether this intervening choice breaks or weakens the causal chain toward the defendants.

Facts of the case

Nuline Distribution inc. (also operating as Fatboy Canada) is a Canadian company that has distributed and sold movable goods across Canada since 2006. It generally uses the same transport company to deliver goods sold to its customers. In this case, Nuline sold certain movable goods and one personal product to a condominium unit owner (the “Client”) in a divided co-ownership building known as “Le 1000 Levert,” for a total price of $1,350.27. The sale was completed and the items were shipped for delivery to the Client’s condominium unit. Delivery took place on 25 March 2025. According to the evidence, the transport company’s driver accessed the building, took an elevator to the floor where the Client’s unit was located, and left two boxes or parcels outside the Client’s door. At some point thereafter, the goods disappeared and were never received by the Client. The Client therefore opposed payment. After making certain checks, Nuline decided to fully reimburse the Client for the purchase price of $1,350.27.

The parties and their roles

The defendant 9367-7920 Québec inc. (“Québec”) was the promoter of the divided co-ownership building marketed as “Le 1000 Levert.” At the time of delivery, Québec still acted as the administrator of the building because several units remained unsold. The second defendant, Lara Martin, was a real estate broker who, under an agreement with Québec, acted as Québec’s representative to sell the remaining condominium units. The Client who ordered the goods from Nuline was a unit owner in the building, but the Client was not a party to the small claims proceedings. Instead, Nuline chose to pursue Québec (the promoter/administrator) and Ms. Martin (the broker) for the loss it claimed to have suffered. Nuline sought to hold them solidarily liable for the amount it refunded to the Client, plus additional sums for legal costs and administrative handling.

The claim and amount sought

Nuline’s total claim was $2,650.27 in damages, which included: the full sale price of $1,350.27 that it had reimbursed to the Client; and an additional amount for what it described as judicial costs and the “processing of the claim.” It alleged that both defendants were solidarily liable for this pecuniary loss on the basis of extra-contractual fault. Specifically, Nuline contended that the defendants failed to adopt reasonable or sufficient means to safeguard the goods delivered to the building. It further asserted that Ms. Martin had provided false or misleading information about how the delivery had been received, and that Nuline would not have reimbursed the Client had it not relied on those representations. The case was heard before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, applying Quebec civil law rules of extra-contractual liability and evidence.

Legal framework and burden of proof

The judge began by recalling the general rule on the burden of proof set out in article 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec, which requires the party asserting a right to prove the facts supporting its claim, while a party alleging that a right is null, modified, or extinguished must prove the facts underlying that assertion. The decision referred to doctrinal authorities (Royer & Piché; Ducharme) emphasizing that the party bearing the burden of persuasion loses if the evidence is insufficient or contradictory such that the judge cannot determine where the truth lies. In the specific context of extra-contractual liability under article 1457 C.c.Q., the court noted that Nuline had to prove three essential elements: a fault committed by the defendants, a compensable damage, and a direct or at least adequate causal link between the alleged fault and the proven damage. The judge stressed that if any of these elements is not established by preponderant, convincing evidence, the claim must fail.

Analysis of the delivery and conduct of the transport company

After hearing the witnesses and reviewing the documents, the court concluded that Nuline had not discharged its burden of proof against the defendants. Instead, the evidence pointed to faulty or inadequate delivery by the transport company’s driver as the primary cause of the disappearance of the goods. The driver did not testify, but the representative of the transport company described the company’s delivery policies and how the driver’s conduct in this instance deviated from those standards. The company’s policies required, among other things, that the driver: ensure personal hand-to-hand delivery of the parcels to the recipient; contact the customer by phone to confirm presence; and, if the customer was absent or unreachable, return the goods instead of leaving them unattended. The court found that the driver had committed at least two of these irregularities. He left the parcels at the Client’s door without ensuring personal delivery, did not verify by telephone whether the Client was at home, and failed to bring the goods back upon realizing that the Client was not there or not responding. These deviations from policy led the court to find that the driver’s delivery was faulty and that this faulty delivery was the direct or, at minimum, adequate cause of the loss.

Contradictions in the driver’s account and impact on Nuline’s position

The court underlined that the driver had given conflicting explanations about where and how the delivery had been completed. According to an email from Nuline’s representative to the transport company dated 24 April 2025, the driver initially claimed to have left the parcels with the security agent at the reception, then later said he had left them at the apartment with a security agent, and then reverted to his first version. Nuline’s own representative criticized these shifting stories in the email as “not serious,” highlighting their contradictions. This internal acknowledgment by Nuline’s representative undermined the company’s later attempt to shift responsibility away from the driver and onto the building promoter and broker. It also weakened the credibility of any theory that the defendants had assumed custody or control of the parcels in a way that could make them liable for the loss. The court treated these contradictions as a significant evidentiary weakness in Nuline’s case.

Alleged misrepresentation by the broker

Nuline also argued that Ms. Martin had sent an inaccurate email on 12 April 2025, wrongly stating that the building had “never” received the order on 25 March. The court accepted that Ms. Martin’s response was indeed inexact and that, in hindsight, she should have been more cautious before making such a categorical statement about the building’s non-receipt of the goods. However, the judge held that this inaccuracy did not constitute the primary cause of Nuline’s financial loss. The disappearance of the goods flowed first and foremost from the driver’s faulty delivery and his decision to leave the parcels unattended at the Client’s door. Even if Ms. Martin’s email contributed to Nuline’s perception of the facts, it did not create or materially increase the risk of loss; the loss had already occurred due to the manner of delivery. In other words, any fault associated with that email did not establish the necessary direct or adequate causal link to the damage claimed.

Nuline’s decision not to pursue its carrier

An additional element in the causation analysis was Nuline’s own subsequent conduct. On 24 April 2025, the same day it sent the email to the transport company highlighting the driver’s contradictory versions, Nuline chose to reimburse the Client in full and not to pursue the carrier for the loss. The court treated this decision as a separate, adequate cause of Nuline’s financial loss. In the judge’s view, Nuline knew or should have known by that time that the delivery circumstances were dubious and that the primary responsibility likely lay with the carrier and its driver. Nevertheless, instead of asserting a claim against its usual transport partner, Nuline opted to seek reimbursement from the building promoter and the broker, basing its position on a theory that the court ultimately found to be unfounded. This voluntary decision weakened Nuline’s attempt to link its loss directly to the alleged faults of the defendants, and it further contributed to the failure to prove a causal chain that could ground their liability.

Absence of insurance or policy clause disputes

There was no indication in the judgment of any insurance policy or specific contractual policy terms being at issue between the parties. The case did not involve a dispute over the interpretation of an insurance contract, delivery terms clause, or limitation of liability clause. Instead, the analysis remained squarely within the realm of extra-contractual civil liability: whether, on the facts, the defendants’ acts or omissions met the criteria of fault, damage, and causation under article 1457 C.c.Q. The judgment therefore did not turn on any policy wording or particular clauses but rather on general civil-law principles of proof and responsibility for wrongful acts.

Outcome and final order

In light of all the evidence, the Court of Québec held that Nuline had not met its burden to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that either 9367-7920 Québec inc. or Lara Martin committed a fault that was the direct or adequate cause of its claimed loss. The court concluded instead that the primary cause of the disappearance of the goods was the faulty delivery by the transport company’s driver and that Nuline’s own decision not to claim against its carrier constituted another adequate cause of its pecuniary loss. Because Nuline failed to establish the essential elements of extra-contractual liability, its action was dismissed. The successful parties were therefore the two defendants, 9367-7920 Québec inc. (Mille Levert Condominium / Le 1000 Levert) and Lara Martin. The court rejected Nuline’s claim of $2,650.27 in its entirety and ordered Nuline to pay court costs of $187 in favour of the defendants, this $187 being the only monetary amount definitively awarded by the judgment in their favour.