Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Civil liability for intentional trespass, theft of copper and damage to Bell Canada’s fenced industrial property in Rivière-du-Loup.
• Reliance on uncontested documentary evidence and criminal convictions following guilty pleas to establish the defendants’ fault and causation on a balance of probabilities.
• Quantification of material damages based on the proven value of stolen copper and fence repair invoices, with refusal to award sales taxes due to Bell’s entitlement to input tax credits.
• Application of the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms (rights to peaceful enjoyment of property and protection against unlawful intrusion) to ground punitive damages.
• Assessment of punitive damages under article 1621 C.c.Q., focusing on deterrence in light of the seriousness of the offence and the broader problem of copper thefts.
• Determination of solidary liability for compensatory damages and individual liability for punitive damages, together with interest, additional indemnity and costs.

Background and facts

Bell Canada owns property located in an industrial park in Rivière-du-Loup, within the District of Kamouraska, Québec. The property is protected by a fence that controls access to Bell’s installations and infrastructure. On 6 May 2024, a Bell technician discovered that the perimeter fence had been cut and that copper wire had been stolen from the site. The theft was reported to the police, who subsequently investigated the incident and identified suspects. Police authorities later informed Bell Canada that two individuals, Dany Damboise and Cynthia Ouellet, had been arrested in connection with the copper theft. Criminal charges were laid for theft, possession of property obtained by crime and possession of tools that could be used to break and enter. In the civil proceedings, Bell Canada sued both individuals as defendants, seeking to recover the value of the stolen copper and the cost to repair the damaged fence, and also claiming punitive damages from each defendant. The defendants were personally served with the civil claim but did not file any response with the court and did not appear at the hearing. In parallel, the criminal case progressed to a point where, on 19 November 2025, both defendants pleaded guilty to the criminal charges and were convicted the same day. The civil court relied on this criminal outcome, along with Bell’s documentary evidence, as part of the factual matrix supporting their liability in the civil claim.

Material damages and quantification issues

The court carefully examined Bell Canada’s documentary proof regarding the financial impact of the theft and the property damage. The value of the stolen copper wire was established at $24,328.56, based on the evidence filed. In addition, Bell showed that repairing the cut fence cost $4,251.48 before taxes. The total invoiced amount for the fence repair, including applicable taxes, came to $4,888.14. Bell’s claim sought recovery of both the value of the copper and the full amount of the repair invoice, including sales taxes. The judge accepted the underlying amounts for the copper and the pre-tax repair cost but drew a distinction when it came to the taxes paid. Because Bell Canada, as a commercial entity, is entitled to claim input tax credits for the taxes paid on goods and services used in its operations, the court found it would be inappropriate to award those taxes as part of the damages. Reimbursing the taxes in circumstances where Bell can recover them through the tax system would overcompensate the plaintiff and result in enrichment rather than true indemnification. The court therefore awarded the value of the copper and the pre-tax cost of the fence repairs, but refused to include the tax portion in the civil damages.

Civil liability and legal basis for fault

On the question of civil liability, the court held that Bell Canada had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants committed faults that caused the claimed losses. The evidence showed that the defendants cut Bell’s fence to gain unauthorized access to the site and then stole valuable copper wire. This conduct constituted an unlawful interference with Bell’s property rights and clearly breached their obligations not to cause harm to others. The judge noted that the defendants’ guilty pleas and criminal convictions for theft and related offences reinforced the civil conclusion that they were responsible for the wrongful acts. With no defence filed, no contrary evidence and clear proof of the losses, the court was satisfied that both defendants were liable for Bell’s material damages.

Charter-based rights and the foundation for punitive damages

The judgment expressly situates the case within the framework of the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms. The court recalled that article 6 of the Charter guarantees every person the right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of their property, while article 8 provides that no one may enter another person’s premises or take anything therefrom without that person’s express or implied consent. By cutting the fence and stealing copper from the property, the defendants directly infringed these Charter-protected rights. Under article 49 of the Charter, an unlawful infringement of a right recognized by the Charter entitles the victim to reparation for the resulting prejudice, and where the infringement is both unlawful and intentional, the court may also award punitive damages. The court found that the defendants’ actions clearly met this threshold: the intrusion onto private property, the deliberate damage to the fence and the intentional theft of copper amounted to an unlawful and intentional violation of Bell Canada’s Charter rights, opening the door to punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

Assessment and purpose of punitive damages

In determining the quantum of punitive damages, the court applied article 1621 of the Civil Code of Québec, which provides that punitive damages must not exceed what is necessary to fulfil their preventive function. The judge emphasized that such damages are not meant to compensate the victim — compensatory damages already serve that role — but rather to deter both the specific wrongdoers and others from engaging in similar misconduct. The court also noted that it had no information regarding the defendants’ patrimonial situation, which is one of the factors expressly mentioned in article 1621 C.c.Q. However, it did have evidence on the seriousness of the wrongdoing and the broader context of copper theft. Bell Canada demonstrated that copper theft had become a significant and recurring problem for its network, with more than 2,270 copper theft incidents recorded nationwide since 2022, representing 88% of all physical security incidents affecting its network. This evidence underscored the scale of the problem and the need for a meaningful deterrent. The gravity of the offences was also reflected in the criminal law, which allows for a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for this type of theft. Taking these elements together, the court considered that punitive damages were justified and that they had to be set at a level sufficient to serve a preventive purpose without being excessive, particularly in light of the substantial compensatory award the defendants already faced.

Final orders, successful party and overall outcome

In the result, the court allowed Bell Canada’s claim in full, subject to the adjustment for taxes on the fence repair. It condemned both defendants, Dany Damboise and Cynthia Ouellet, to pay Bell Canada, on a solidary basis, compensatory damages of $28,580.04, representing the value of the stolen copper and the pre-tax cost of repairing the damaged fence. In addition to this joint obligation, the court ordered each defendant separately to pay punitive damages of $5,000 to Bell Canada, reflecting the intentional and unlawful infringement of Bell’s Charter-protected property rights and the need to deter similar copper thefts in the future. Legal interest at the statutory rate, plus the additional indemnity provided by article 1619 C.c.Q., was awarded on the compensatory amount from 15 September 2025 and on each $5,000 punitive award from the date of judgment, together with court costs, although the exact monetary value of interest and costs was not quantified in the decision. Overall, Bell Canada emerged as the successful party, obtaining principal awards totalling $38,580.04 in compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest, the additional indemnity and its legal costs, with the precise aggregate figure for interest and costs not determinable from the reasons alone.