Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Existence and terms of a 23 000 $ loan were established through a written acknowledgment of debt and uncontested testimony.
• The scope and enforceability of promised “benefits” (3 000 $ to 6 000 $ every two months) turned on proof of actual profits from the friperie and the court’s ability to arbitrate loss of gain.
• The plaintiff’s inability to prove the friperie’s profits, largely caused by the defendant’s conduct, led the court to award a modest lump sum (6 000 $) rather than the 51 000 $ claimed for lost benefits.
• Evidence of financial hardship, health issues, insomnia, work stoppage and family tensions supported an award of 15 000 $ for troubles and inconveniences as direct, foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s misconduct.
• Fraudulent appropriation of funds and abuse of trust justified punitive damages of 5 000 $ for intentional and unlawful interference with the plaintiff’s right to free disposition of property under the Quebec Charter.
• Despite the defendant’s default, the plaintiff still had to satisfy the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, which the court found met for part of the claimed amounts.

Facts of the case
The parties, Adolphe Ndemanyi (plaintiff) and François Manirakiza (defendant), met in 2019. The defendant quickly presented a business project to the plaintiff: opening and operating a friperie (second-hand clothing business) in Africa by exporting goods from Québec. In 2022, to finance the first container of goods and launch the friperie’s operations, the defendant asked the plaintiff for a loan of 23 000 $. The plaintiff agreed to lend this amount. On 19 May 2022, the defendant signed a written recognition of debt confirming that he owed the plaintiff 23 000 $. In addition to repaying the capital within two months, the defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff between 3 000 $ and 6 000 $ every two months as “benefits” linked to the friperie’s activities. The duration of this profit-sharing arrangement was not clearly defined in the parties’ agreement. Over time, the defendant failed to make any repayment or profit-sharing payments. Instead, he offered excuses and lies to the plaintiff to justify his inaction. Despite the plaintiff’s efforts, including sending a formal demand letter with a deadline of 24 February 2025, the defendant never paid a single cent. In 2024, the defendant confirmed to the plaintiff that the friperie was indeed in operation, but he still refused to pay what had been promised. The plaintiff then brought an action before the Court of Québec seeking several heads of claim: repayment of the 23 000 $ loan; 51 000 $ for loss of expected “benefits” from the business; 15 000 $ for troubles and inconveniences arising from the situation; and 10 000 $ in punitive damages.

Procedural posture and burden of proof
The originating application was properly served on the defendant on 2 April 2025, but he never filed a response or defence. The case thus proceeded by default, with the court hearing only the plaintiff’s evidence. Even in the defendant’s absence, the judge emphasized that the plaintiff still had to prove his claims on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, in line with the rules of evidence set out in the Civil Code of Québec. The court examined the documentary exhibits, including the written acknowledgment of debt and the demand letter, along with the plaintiff’s oral testimony, which was uncontested.

Contractual obligations and repayment of the loan
On the question of the loan itself, the evidence was straightforward. The written recognition of debt and the plaintiff’s testimony established that the defendant had borrowed 23 000 $ and had not repaid any part of this sum. The court accepted that this amount was clearly due and enforceable. There was no ambiguity as to the existence or amount of the loan, and no defence was advanced to challenge it. As a result, the court ordered the defendant to reimburse the full 23 000 $ capital to the plaintiff.

Claim for lost “benefits” and assessment of loss of gain
The plaintiff also claimed 51 000 $ as loss of “benefits” (profits) under the business arrangement. The defendant had promised to pay the plaintiff between 3 000 $ and 6 000 $ every two months, but the duration of this profit-sharing obligation was never clearly defined. The court referred to article 1611 of the Civil Code of Québec, which provides that damages are meant to compensate both the loss suffered and the gain of which the creditor has been deprived. In this context, the court reasoned that the claimed “benefits” should, in principle, be tied to actual profits generated by the friperie. Using ordinary accounting notions, the judge noted that “benefits” are the positive difference between total revenues and total expenses over a given period. The plaintiff, however, was unable to prove that the friperie had actually made profits or in what amount. This evidentiary gap was primarily attributable to the defendant’s conduct, as he controlled the information about the business’s operations and finances. The court held that the lack of precise proof of profits was not a complete bar to recovery. It recognized that in such situations it may award nominal or arbitrated damages to reflect a real but unquantified loss of gain. Exercising this discretion, and in light of the vague duration of the profit-sharing promise and the lack of concrete financial data, the court awarded the plaintiff 6 000 $ for lost “benefits” instead of the 51 000 $ claimed.

Moral damages for troubles and inconveniences
Beyond the purely financial loss, the plaintiff sought 15 000 $ for his troubles and inconveniences. The evidence showed that the defendant’s lies and abuse of trust had direct and foreseeable consequences for the plaintiff’s life. The plaintiff experienced financial difficulties, health problems, insomnia, significant stress, a work stoppage, and serious tensions within his family. The court characterized these harms as foreseeable, direct and immediate consequences of the defendant’s wrongful conduct and breach of his commitments. Applying the principles of contractual and civil liability, the judge considered that the plaintiff’s testimony and circumstances adequately supported the amount of 15 000 $ claimed. The court therefore granted this full sum as compensatory moral damages.

Punitive damages and protection of property rights
The plaintiff also demanded punitive damages, originally in the amount of 10 000 $. The court reviewed the jurisprudence recognizing that fraudulent appropriation of funds can justify punitive (exemplary) damages in Quebec. Such conduct interferes with an individual’s right to the free disposition of their property, a right protected by the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The judge found that the defendant’s conduct—taking and retaining the plaintiff’s funds under false pretences and repeated lies—was both unlawful and intentional. These elements met the threshold for awarding punitive damages. Referring to the criteria in article 1621 of the Civil Code of Québec and relevant case law, the court concluded that 5 000 $ in punitive damages was a just and reasonable amount in the circumstances. This sum was intended not only to denounce and punish the defendant’s behaviour, but also to deter similar misconduct. There were no insurance policy terms or contractual clauses governing coverage or indemnity discussed in the judgment; the analysis centered instead on general principles of contractual liability, compensation of loss and gain, and Charter-protected property rights.

Interest, additional indemnity and costs
In addition to the principal monetary awards, the court granted the plaintiff legal interest and the statutory additional indemnity. The judgment fixed interest at the legal rate of 5 % per year, along with the additional indemnity provided for in article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, running from 24 February 2025, the date marking the end of the period given in the demand letter. The court also awarded the plaintiff his costs of justice, though the exact dollar figure for costs is not specified in the decision and therefore cannot be precisely determined from the text.

Ruling and overall outcome
In the result, the court partly allowed the plaintiff’s action. The defendant, François Manirakiza, was condemned to pay the plaintiff, Adolphe Ndemanyi, a total of 49 000 $ in principal, which comprises 23 000 $ for the unpaid loan, 6 000 $ for lost “benefits,” 15 000 $ for troubles and inconveniences, and 5 000 $ in punitive damages. This amount is payable with legal interest at 5 % per year and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from 24 February 2025, together with court costs in an amount not specifically quantified in the judgment. As a result, the successful party is the plaintiff, who obtains a total monetary award of 49 000 $ plus interest, additional indemnity and costs whose exact value cannot be determined from the decision.