Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over unauthorized extraction of sand between owners of contiguous immovables and the location of the common boundary line.
• Insufficiency of the plaintiff’s documentary and expert proof regarding the volume, value, and remediation costs of the allegedly extracted 800 tonnes of sand.
• Weight given to the defendant’s admission of having wrongfully extracted approximately 200 tonnes of sand from the plaintiff’s land, and the valuation of that sand at 2 $ per tonne.
• Failure of both parties to substantiate claimed amounts for broader consequential damages (troubles, inconvenience, and alleged clean-up costs) with corroborating evidence.
• Rejection of the defendant’s counterclaim for alleged dumping of waste and fill due to lack of precise proof of location, nature of prejudice, and basis for the claimed 6 100 $.
• Application of the civil burden of proof (preponderance of evidence) resulting in partial success for the plaintiff and complete failure of the defendant’s reconventional claim.

Facts of the case

The dispute in Lafrenière c. Lafrenière, 2026 QCCQ 1798, arises between neighboring landowners whose immovables are contiguous in Shawinigan, Québec. Denis Lafrenière, the plaintiff, owns two lots adjacent to the property of 2744-6160 Québec Inc., the defendant. The conflict centers on a sandpit-type situation along or near the boundary line between the two properties, in which each party accuses the other of using the neighbor’s land without authorization. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, through its president Daniel Martel, undertook sand extraction works on his land sometime around late November and early December 2020. He claims to have observed an excavator and two transport trucks removing sand from his two lots near the dividing line, and he says he personally intervened to demand that Martel stop the work. According to the plaintiff, the defendant removed approximately 800 tonnes of sand from his property without right or authorization. On this basis, he claims a total of 6 100 $, broken down as 3 200 $ for the value of 800 tonnes of sand at 4 $ per tonne, 1 400 $ for backfilling and remedial work, and 1 500 $ for troubles and inconvenience. The defendant contests the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety and, by way of a counterclaim, turns the tables by alleging that the plaintiff wrongfully deposited waste and fill materials on the defendant’s land. For this alleged dumping, the defendant seeks damages of 6 100 $, mirroring the plaintiff’s claimed amount.

Legal framework and burden of proof

The court, sitting in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, frames the dispute within basic principles of civil liability and evidentiary burdens under the Civil Code of Québec. In civil matters, it is the party asserting a right who must prove the facts that support it on a balance of probabilities. If the evidence is weak, contradictory, or leaves the judge unable to determine where the truth lies, the party bearing the burden of proof fails, in whole or in part. For the principal claim, the plaintiff had to establish that the defendant committed a fault by extracting sand from his lots without right or authorization, and then prove the existence and quantum of the resulting prejudice, including the value of the sand, cost of remedial work, and any non-pecuniary inconvenience. Conversely, on the counterclaim, the defendant had to prove that the plaintiff committed a fault by dumping waste and fill on the defendant’s land, and then demonstrate the specific prejudice and its valuation. There is no discussion of insurance policy terms or contractual clauses in this judgment; the dispute rests on extra-contractual civil liability and property rights, not on interpretation of a policy or specific written clauses.

Evidence on the principal claim

In support of his claim, the plaintiff relied mainly on his own testimony and a few photographs showing an area of sandy ground where excavation appears to have been carried out. He stated that a land survey had been done identifying the boundary line and that a third-party firm had calculated the volume of sand removed, which he estimated at 800 tonnes. However, he did not call any surveyor, expert, or other witness to corroborate these assertions, nor did he file in evidence any survey plan, expert report, invoice, or written calculation. The only supporting exhibits were some photographs that vaguely illustrate excavation but do not clearly establish the exact location relative to the property line or the precise volume of sand taken. The plaintiff also claimed that the sand was worth 4 $ per tonne, yet provided no documentary evidence—such as market quotations, invoices, or other objective proof—to support this valuation. Similarly, with respect to the 1 400 $ claimed for backfilling work allegedly done by a Mr. Bélanger, no invoices, receipts, or contracts were produced to substantiate either that the work was performed or that the cost was as claimed. For the 1 500 $ claimed as damages for troubles and inconvenience, the plaintiff essentially stated that he had been deprived of the use of the extracted sand and had to purchase sand elsewhere, but again produced no proof of purchasing replacement sand or incurring any specific additional costs.

Judicial analysis of the plaintiff’s proof

The court finds that these evidentiary gaps make it difficult to determine with certainty whether all of the sand extracted by the defendant was actually taken from the plaintiff’s lots, and if so, the total quantity and its precise value. In other words, the plaintiff’s evidence, standing alone, would have been insufficient to support his entire claim for 800 tonnes at 4 $ per tonne plus remedial costs and inconvenience. Nonetheless, the case does not turn entirely against the plaintiff because of a significant admission from the defendant’s side. During his testimony, the defendant’s president Daniel Martel acknowledges that in the autumn of 2023 he extracted approximately 400 tonnes of sand near the boundary between the parties’ properties, believing in good faith that he was on his own land. Importantly, he admits that about half of this, roughly 200 tonnes, was in fact mistakenly taken from the plaintiff’s lots. Martel disputes, however, the plaintiff’s valuation of the sand, asserting that the sand is worth 2 $ per tonne, not 4 $ per tonne. In light of this admission, the judge concludes that a fault has been committed by the defendant in extracting 200 tonnes of sand from the plaintiff’s land without right. Given the absence of credible evidence from the plaintiff to justify a higher valuation, the court accepts the defendant’s uncontested value of 2 $ per tonne. This leads to a quantified material loss of 400 $. No separate award is made for the alleged 1 400 $ of backfilling costs or the 1 500 $ non-pecuniary damages, as they were not independently proven.

Evidence and analysis on the counterclaim

On the counterclaim, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff deposited fill materials, including waste and other similar materials, on the defendant’s land. Once again, the evidence primarily consists of the testimony of Daniel Martel and a few photographs depicting fill and what appears to be pieces of wood. However, these photos do not clearly specify where the fill is located, and therefore do not establish conclusively that the materials lie on the defendant’s property as opposed to elsewhere. The plaintiff, for his part, acknowledges doing some backfilling but maintains that if any of that work extended onto the defendant’s property, it was done with Martel’s consent. Furthermore, when questioned, Martel is unable to articulate concretely what prejudice the defendant actually suffered—whether economic, environmental, or otherwise—and cannot explain how the alleged damages are valued at 6 100 $, other than saying it is the same amount claimed by the plaintiff. The court views this as an arbitrary figure without evidentiary foundation. Given the lack of persuasive proof of fault, prejudice, and causal link, the judge holds that the defendant has failed to meet its burden on the counterclaim. It is therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Outcome and monetary consequences

In the final disposition, the Court of Québec partially grants the plaintiff’s claim, rejects the defendant’s defense on the main action, and dismisses the defendant’s 6 100 $ counterclaim. The only compensatory damages awarded are 400 $, representing the value of the 200 tonnes of sand wrongfully extracted from the plaintiff’s lots at 2 $ per tonne. The court also orders the defendant to pay the plaintiff 201 $ in judicial costs corresponding to the filing fee for the claim, along with legal interest and the additional indemnity provided for by article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated from 14 October 2022, the date of service of the claim. Because interest and the additional indemnity continue to accrue over time and are not arithmetically calculated in the judgment, their exact amount cannot be precisely determined from the decision alone. Overall, the successful party is the plaintiff, Denis Lafrenière, who emerges with a total fixed monetary award of 601 $ (400 $ in damages plus 201 $ in costs), in addition to legal interest and the statutory additional indemnity, whose exact total is not specified in the judgment.