Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over a series of alleged fraudulent debit and Visa transactions at Computers Canada/Canada Computers branches charged to the plaintiff’s bank and credit card accounts.
• Use of the plaintiff’s personal information, including his telephone number and an alleged PIN, without proof that he authorized, initiated or benefited from any of the contested purchases.
• Assessment of the plaintiff’s credibility and documentary proof (bank statements, transaction lists, police complaint, demand letter) to establish that he never received any goods or services related to the transactions.
• Failure of the defendant retailer to produce concrete transactional evidence (in-store records, receipts, CCTV, or system logs) linking the disputed charges to the plaintiff as a consenting customer.
• Application of the civil burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec to determine whether it was more probable than not that the transactions were fraudulent.
• Allocation of responsibility for losses arising from unauthorized point-of-sale card use, resulting in a monetary condemnation against the merchant for the amount of the disputed charges plus costs and interest.

Facts of the case

Christian Yanni N’Guessan, a 21-year-old individual with no commercial activities, brought a small claims action before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, against Computers Canada Inc. (referred to in the evidence as Canada Computers Inc.). He claimed $4,392.60 in damages arising from a series of transactions he alleged were fraudulent and carried out without his knowledge or consent. These transactions occurred between May 2022 and January 2023 in various branches of Canada Computers in Montréal and were charged to his bank debit account and Visa credit card. N’Guessan maintained that he had never purchased goods or received services corresponding to those transactions at Computers Canada during the relevant period. He explained that his telephone number, which constitutes personal information, appeared to have been used fraudulently in association with the transactions. Despite these entries on his accounts, he stated that no goods, parcels or other items linked to the disputed purchases were delivered to his address. At all relevant times, his physical debit and Visa cards, including his card numbers, remained in his possession.

Discovery of the transactions and steps taken

According to the judgment, N’Guessan discovered the contested charges only at the end of January 2023, when reviewing his account activity. After identifying several unfamiliar payments totalling approximately $4,392.60, he promptly notified his financial institution, the Royal Bank of Canada. The bank reacted by blocking his cards and modifying his security information to prevent further misuse. A detailed update and breakdown of the allegedly fraudulent transactions was prepared, showing a total of $4,392.57 on his debit account and Visa card. This documentation, filed as exhibits in the case, set out the dates and locations of the charges, along with the amounts that N’Guessan disputed as unauthorized. In addition to working with his bank, N’Guessan filed a formal police complaint with the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM), at Station 7, on 10 February 2023. The complaint was registered under file number MTLEV2300124121 for the purpose of conducting a proper criminal investigation into the suspected fraud.

Pre-litigation demand and commencement of proceedings

On 4 June 2025, counsel for N’Guessan sent a written demand letter (mise en demeure) to Computers Canada Inc. The letter set out his position that the transactions associated with his accounts were fraudulent and that the company bore responsibility for the sums allegedly paid without any corresponding goods or services. The defendant denied liability in response, and no reimbursement was provided. As a result of this refusal, N’Guessan commenced proceedings in the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, under file number 500-32-727718-258, seeking recovery of the disputed amounts from the retailer.

Defendant’s position and evidentiary stance

Computers Canada Inc. contested the claim and argued that it had not processed any transactions linked to N’Guessan’s member profile. In written communications reproduced in the decision, the defendant stated that it had located a member name associated with ID M01344779 but had found no transactions tied to that identifier. It added that it had found only a single online order that was cancelled and for which no payment had been made. At the hearing, however, the defendant’s representatives advanced a different factual theory. They asserted that all of the disputed transactions had indeed been carried out in four separate Montréal branches of Computers Canada using a personal identification number (PIN), described by them as a “personal identifier.” On this version, the use of a valid PIN would imply either the cardholder’s participation or at least the regular use of a bank or credit card at the point of sale. Crucially, the court noted that the defendant did not substantiate this assertion with any supporting evidence. No register logs, point-of-sale records, transaction slips, surveillance footage, or other internal records were produced to demonstrate that N’Guessan was the person who made the purchases, or that his genuine card and PIN had been used by him in-store.

Evidence presented by the plaintiff

In contrast, N’Guessan produced a series of documentary exhibits and provided direct testimony to support his version of events. These included bank account records, a list of the allegedly fraudulent transactions covering both his debit and Visa card, and the demand letter of 4 June 2025. The court noted that these statements and transaction listings clearly reflected the disputed charges and corroborated his claim that he had not received goods corresponding to them. He also relied on his police complaint, thereby showing that he had taken formal steps to have the matter investigated as a suspected fraud. The judgment emphasizes that throughout the period in question his debit and Visa cards remained physically in his possession, and that no deliveries linked to the purchases were made to his residence. Taken together, this evidence supported his assertion that the transactions had been carried out by an unknown third party using his personal information, without his knowledge or consent.

Legal framework on burden and standard of proof

The court based its analysis on articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, which set out the rules on burden of proof and standard of proof in civil matters. Article 2803 provides that a party seeking to assert a right must prove the facts that support its claim, while a party alleging that a right is null, modified or extinguished must likewise prove the underlying facts. Article 2804 states that proof rendering the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence is sufficient unless the law requires a more stringent standard. Applying these provisions in a small claims context, the judge focused on whether N’Guessan had shown, on a balance of probabilities, that the transactions were fraudulent and that he did not benefit from them, and whether the defendant had met any corresponding evidentiary burden to displace that conclusion.

Absence of insurance or policy term disputes

The judgment does not discuss any insurance policy, cardholder agreement, or specific contractual clauses between N’Guessan and his bank or between the customer and Computers Canada. The dispute is framed squarely as a civil liability claim for reimbursement of unauthorized transactions rather than as an insurance coverage or policy-interpretation case. As a result, there is no analysis of particular policy wordings or clauses at issue; the focus remains on the evidentiary assessment of fraudulent use and the allocation of responsibility between the customer and the merchant under general civil law principles.

Court’s assessment and final outcome

After considering both testimonial and documentary evidence, the court explicitly concluded that the plaintiff had met his burden of proof under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code of Québec. The judge accepted that the transactions were carried out fraudulently without N’Guessan’s authorization, that he had never received goods or services corresponding to the charges, and that his personal information had been misused in the process. In contrast, the defendant’s assertion that the transactions had been legitimately executed in-store using a PIN was not backed by concrete proof. This failure to substantiate its defence led the court to reject Computers Canada’s position. Accordingly, the Court of Québec condemned Computers Canada Inc. to pay Christian Yanni N’Guessan the sum of $4,392.60 in damages, representing the total of the disputed transactions, plus legal interest at the statutory rate, together with the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated from 4 June 2025, the date of the demand letter. The defendant was also ordered to reimburse court costs in the amount of $118 (the judicial stamp). The successful party is therefore N’Guessan, with a total award consisting of $4,392.60 in principal damages, $118 in costs and an additional, as-yet undetermined amount in accrued interest and indemnity that will depend on the date of actual payment.