Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Use of false representations and an illusory real estate investment opportunity to obtain 112 000 $ from the plaintiff without any actual transaction.
• Reliance on text message exchanges and subsequent NSF cheques as key evidence of a concerted fraudulent scheme and acknowledgment of indebtedness.
• Application of article 1480 C.c.Q. to impose imperfect solidarity (in solidum) among multiple actors whose distinct faults contributed to a single financial prejudice.
• Treatment of NSF cheques and repeated promises of repayment as tacit recognitions of debt engaging each defendant’s civil liability.
• Characterisation of the defendants’ conduct as civil fault based on fraud (dol), breach of good faith, and participation in a collective wrongful act.
• Discretionary award of part of the plaintiff’s extrajudicial fees as material damages due to the defendants’ unfounded resistance and needless prolongation of proceedings.

Factual background

Gestion immobilière de Portneuf inc. (Portneuf inc.), a company active in road construction, was looking to expand its operations by acquiring nearby commercial properties located on boulevard Bona-Dussault in Saint-Marc-des-Carrières. These immovables were considered strategically important because of their proximity to the company’s head office and the role they could play in its projected expansion. To that end, the company became interested in what was presented to it as a favourable opportunity to acquire a group of such properties at a good price.
The opportunity was brought to Portneuf inc. by Normand Robichaud, a long-time employee of the company who enjoyed a reputation for reliability. He introduced the company to his business partner, André Bilodeau, and relayed that lucrative real estate investments were possible in the context of asset recoveries tied to bankruptcies. Robichaud’s status as a trusted employee created a foundation of confidence that proved central to how the events unfolded.
Bilodeau then presented himself as having the ability to secure an ensemble of commercial buildings near Portneuf inc.’s head office. He explained that a sum of 112 000 $ needed to be advanced quickly in order to seize the opportunity and complete the transaction through his associate, Danny Bussières. Relying on these representations, Portneuf inc. transferred 112 000 $ by bank transfer on 1 June 2022, anticipating that a real estate transaction would follow.
No transaction ever materialised. Despite repeated follow-ups by Portneuf inc., the promised acquisition did not occur, and the funds were not returned. Instead, different explanations and assurances were given over time, maintaining the appearance that either the purchase or a reimbursement was forthcoming.

Alleged fraudulent scheme and subsequent dealings

Portneuf inc. alleged that it was the victim of a fraudulent scheme orchestrated collectively by Robichaud, Bilodeau and Bussières. According to the plaintiff, they used pretexts and false representations to extract a substantial sum under the guise of a legitimate investment opportunity.
A crucial part of the evidentiary record consisted of text message exchanges between Portneuf inc.’s representative, Sébastien Savard, and each of the three defendants. These communications showed the defendants discussing the acquisition, the status of the funds, and promises of eventual reimbursement. The court held that they revealed a manifest complicity and a common intention to mislead Portneuf inc. and to obtain its money under false pretences.
To reinforce the illusion of repayment, the defendants, particularly Bussières, issued cheques in favour of Portneuf inc. that were intended to reimburse the 112 000 $. However, these cheques were returned for insufficient funds. The court viewed these NSF cheques, along with the various excuses and shifting explanations, as part of a pattern of conduct designed to gain time and keep the plaintiff in a state of expectation, rather than as genuine efforts to pay.

Positions of the parties and procedural posture

Portneuf inc. claimed jointly and severally (solidarily) against all three defendants. It sought reimbursement of the 112 000 $ advanced toward the non-existent real estate purchase, asserting that all defendants’ conduct contributed to the same financial loss. The plaintiff also claimed 15 000 $ in damages for extrajudicial fees incurred due to the fraudulent and bad-faith nature of the dealings.
Procedurally, the defendants’ positions differed:

• Danny Bussières did not respond to the proceedings at all and was in default.
• Normand Robichaud filed a response but was self-represented and filed no substantive defence.
• Only André Bilodeau, initially represented by counsel, filed a summary statement of defence. He had contested liability and raised arguments of inadmissibility of the action.
  On the morning of the trial, Bilodeau’s lawyer sought leave to cease acting. The court contacted Bilodeau by telephone and had him sworn. At that moment, Bilodeau explicitly acknowledged that he owed the sums claimed to Portneuf inc. and that he had no defence to offer. He accepted that his lawyer withdraw and chose not to participate in the hearing, allowing the trial to proceed in his absence while he effectively submitted to the court’s decision.

Legal framework and issues

The court structured its analysis around several core legal questions under Quebec civil law. First, it reiterated the basic rule on burden of proof in article 2803 C.c.Q., under which Portneuf inc. was required to prove the facts that supported its claim, including fraud, misrepresentation, and the loss suffered.
A central issue concerned whether the three defendants could be held solidarily liable for a single prejudice—the loss of 112 000 $—even though only Bussières directly received the funds and each defendant’s acts were not identical. The court relied on article 1480 C.c.Q., which creates a form of imperfect solidarity among multiple persons whose collective or indistinguishable faults cause the same damage. Under this mechanism, all participants in a “fait collectif fautif” can be obligated in solidum where it is either impossible or impractical to tease out the precise causal contribution of each. The court drew on doctrinal commentary (notably Karim) to clarify that such imperfect solidarity can apply in both contractual and extra-contractual contexts and does not require a single underlying contract linking all defendants to the creditor.
The court also addressed the concept of recognition of debt and the legal effect of cheques and promises of payment. Under the federal Bills of Exchange Act (Loi sur les lettres de change), the drawer of a cheque is responsible for the payment stated on it. In civil law, a valid recognition of debt need not follow a particular form and can be express or tacit. Acts such as issuing cheques, offering partial or full payment, making repayment proposals or giving assurances can all amount to a recognition of an existing obligation and, among other effects, may interrupt prescription.
Another important legal issue was whether the fraudulent conduct alleged and proven constituted a civil fault under article 1457 C.c.Q. The court referred to prior case law confirming that fraud is a delictual fault engaging the civil liability of its perpetrator and that such a finding can coexist with or operate independently of contractual sources of obligation.

Court’s analysis on liability

On the facts, the court concluded that Portneuf inc. had met its burden of proof. The text messages between Savard and the defendants displayed more than mere disorganisation or delay; they evidenced a coordinated effort to obtain and retain the plaintiff’s money under false pretences. The defendants’ conduct—presenting a fictitious real estate deal, insisting on the need for an urgent advance, and then cycling through shifting stories about the location and timing of funds—constituted fraudulent manoeuvres.
The court emphasised that all three defendants played active roles. At various times they discussed repayment with the plaintiff, promised that money would be at the caisse, in the hands of a lawyer, or subject to an imminent transfer, and they collectively contributed to the impression that a resolution was just around the corner. Their involvement could not be dismissed as marginal or incidental.
Regarding Bussières specifically, the issuance of cheques to Portneuf inc. was treated as a clear recognition that he was debtor of the 112 000 $. The court stressed that a debtor’s recognition of debt does not require formal language; issuing a cheque and discussing repayment are sufficient to show the will to acknowledge the obligation. In this sense, each defendant’s communications and behaviour—including NSF cheques, repayment offers, and continuing assurances—were seen as separate but converging recognitions of the same underlying debt.
Invoking article 1480 C.c.Q., the court characterised the defendants’ conduct as a collective wrongful act that caused a single economic prejudice: the loss of 112 000 $ advanced for a real estate purchase that never occurred. Even if the obligations of each defendant could be traced to different factual or legal sources, the combination of their misconduct justified holding them liable in solidum. The court thus found that the defendants had committed faults, including fraud and misrepresentation (dol), that breached their duty of good faith and engaged their civil liability toward the plaintiff.

Findings on extrajudicial fees

Portneuf inc. also claimed 15 000 $ for extrajudicial fees—lawyers’ fees incurred to recover the sums it was owed—without invoking the abusive proceedings regime in article 54 C.p.c. As a starting point, such fees are ordinarily the responsibility of the client toward its counsel and are not automatically recoverable from the opposing party, beyond tariff-based costs.
However, Quebec courts retain certain discretionary powers, notably under article 342 C.p.c., to award sums that, in substance, compensate for unnecessary costs or prejudice caused by an opposing party’s conduct. In this case, the court underscored that Bilodeau effectively admitted at trial that he had never had any real defence, yet his earlier posture had contributed to prolonging the proceedings and forcing the plaintiff to incur significant expense. Robichaud, for his part, had essentially tied his fate to Bilodeau’s without offering any serious independent defence.
In light of these factors, the court did not grant the full 15 000 $ claimed but instead exercised its discretion to award 5 000 $ in extrajudicial fees as material damages. This amount was ordered solidarily against Bilodeau and Robichaud only, reflecting their specific procedural conduct and the unnecessary costs thereby imposed on Portneuf inc.

Ruling and outcome

In the result, the Superior Court concluded that Portneuf inc. had been defrauded by the concerted actions of the three defendants. It held that Robichaud, Bilodeau and Bussières had engaged in a collective wrongful act, relying on false representations and an illusory real estate transaction to obtain 112 000 $, and that their subsequent promises, cheques without sufficient funds and contradictory explanations were aimed at delaying or avoiding repayment rather than rectifying the situation.
The court therefore condemned all three defendants, solidarily, to reimburse Portneuf inc. the sum of 112 000 $, with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity as of 29 November 2022, the date of the cheque that was returned for insufficient funds. It further ordered Bilodeau and Robichaud, again solidarily, to pay 5 000 $ in extrajudicial fees, with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity from the date of judgment, in addition to the usual court costs. In practical terms, the successful party in this litigation is Gestion immobilière de Portneuf inc., which obtained a total principal award of 117 000 $ against the defendants (112 000 $ in reimbursement plus 5 000 $ in extrajudicial fees), along with interest, the additional indemnity and unquantified court costs that the judgment also grants in its favour.