Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Termination of an indeterminate-term services contract without the contractually required 30-day notice, and whether “for cause” termination could override that clause.
• Alleged defective performance of cleaning services leading to a fruit fly infestation in a food-packaging facility, and whether this constituted a serious cause justifying immediate termination.
• Allocation of the burden of proof in civil matters, requiring each party to establish its claim or defence on a balance of probabilities under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q.
• Characterisation of the agreement as a contract for services under articles 2098 and 2099 C.c.Q., with emphasis on the service provider’s responsibility for methods and results.
• Assessment of conflicting testimonial and documentary evidence to determine whether the cleaning company’s shortcomings were sufficiently serious to justify termination without notice.
• Insufficiency of proof for the counterclaim, as the employer failed to substantiate the value of employee time allegedly spent remedying the infestation with adequate accounting documents.

Facts of the case

Entretien Héroux inc. is a company operating in the building maintenance and cleaning sector, while Emballage Canfab inc. is a food-packaging company. The parties entered into a written contract on 3 May 2024 under which Entretien Héroux agreed to provide cleaning and maintenance services at Canfab’s facilities in Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville. The contract was for an indeterminate term but allowed either party to terminate on giving 30 days’ prior notice. This notice clause became central to the dispute when the commercial relationship deteriorated following operational problems at the facility. In August 2024, Emballage Canfab unilaterally terminated the contract by email. The termination took effect immediately, without the 30-day notice specified in the contract. Canfab justified the immediate termination on the basis that it was “for cause” rather than a simple convenience termination. It alleged that Entretien Héroux’s deficient performance had caused a fruit fly infestation (mouches à fruits) in its premises, a serious issue given the company’s involvement in the food sector. According to Canfab, the infestation stemmed in particular from failures in basic cleaning tasks, such as not emptying cafeteria garbage bins adequately. The seriousness of the problem was heightened by the strict sanitary expectations applicable to food-related operations. Canfab claimed that such deficiencies placed its operations and possibly its products at risk.

Claims and procedural posture

Entretien Héroux brought a claim in the Cour du Québec, Small Claims Division, seeking 5 340,35 $ from Emballage Canfab. This sum represented the value of the 30-day contractual notice period it said it should have received when Canfab terminated the contract. The cleaning company’s position was that the contract clearly required a 30-day notice and that Canfab had breached the agreement by ending it immediately. In response, Emballage Canfab both defended against the main claim and advanced a counterclaim. It alleged that Entretien Héroux’s inadequate services had caused an infestation that required Canfab’s own employees to intervene extensively to address the problem. On that basis, Canfab sought 3 784,02 $ by way of a reconventional demand, claiming this represented the value of employees’ time and effort spent dealing with the infestation. The dispute was therefore twofold: whether Héroux was entitled to payment equivalent to a 30-day notice period, and whether Canfab could recover its alleged internal remediation costs as damages.

Legal framework and contract terms

The court characterised the parties’ arrangement as a contract for services within the meaning of article 2098 of the Civil Code of Québec. Under this provision, a service provider agrees to furnish services or perform an intellectual or material work for a client in exchange for a price. The court also referred to article 2099 C.c.Q., which grants the service provider the freedom to choose the means of performance and confirms the absence of a relationship of subordination to the client regarding execution. Within that framework, Entretien Héroux, as professional cleaner, bore responsibility for how it organised, executed and monitored the cleaning. The core contractual clause at issue was the 30-day notice provision. The contract, being of indeterminate duration, allowed either party to terminate upon such notice. However, the court identified that this notice obligation was not absolute. Termination “for cause” − i.e., where there is a sufficiently serious contractual breach or failure − can justify ending the relationship without waiting out the contractual notice period. The question, therefore, was whether the factual circumstances amounted to a serious cause that permitted Canfab to depart from the contractual 30-day notice.

Evidence presented and assessment of fault

On the evidentiary front, the court stressed the general civil rule that the party asserting a right must prove the supporting facts on a balance of probabilities, as per articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. Entretien Héroux needed to show its entitlement to the claimed notice payment. Conversely, Emballage Canfab, in order to rely on “for cause” termination contrary to the notice clause, had to establish that Héroux’s performance failures were sufficiently serious to justify immediate termination. The court found that Canfab met this burden. It relied on the testimony of a key representative, Mr. Gary Dubrovsky, and written statements detailing the shortcomings in cleaning and the insufficient time dedicated by Entretien Héroux to maintaining the Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville facilities. The evidence pointed to “travail bâclé ou insuffisant” — slapdash or inadequate work — that led to a fruit fly infestation. Photos and other documentation illustrated specific failings such as the omission to properly empty cafeteria garbage bins, a basic hygiene task in a food-related environment. In its defence, Entretien Héroux did not fully deny the factual allegations. Instead, in an email from Mr. Anthony Héroux to Mr. Dubrovsky, the cleaning company largely attempted to shift responsibility onto Canfab. The email argued that had Canfab provided better initial information, support, and training, the situation could have been better managed, and that Canfab’s own employees were not always respecting internal rules. The court reproduced this email and used it as an illustration that the cleaning company implicitly acknowledged problems but tried to attribute them to the client. The court rejected this deflection. It underscored that Entretien Héroux was the professional in the cleaning field and could not transfer its own performance obligations onto the client. As the party responsible for the cleaning methods and standards, Héroux had to assume accountability for the deficiencies that led to the infestation.

Right to terminate without notice

Having analysed the evidence, the court concluded that Canfab had demonstrated a serious cause justifying immediate termination. The infestation and the underlying substandard cleaning were viewed as sufficiently grave, particularly given Canfab’s activities in the food sector and the potential risk to products and regulatory compliance. Because of this proven serious cause, the court held that Emballage Canfab was entitled to terminate the service contract forthwith, without respecting the 30-day contractual notice period. Consequently, the premise of Entretien Héroux’s main claim – that it was owed payment equivalent to a 30-day notice because termination occurred without the agreed notice – failed. There was therefore no contractual breach by Canfab in refusing to pay this amount once the termination “for cause” was accepted.

Counterclaim for internal remediation costs

The court then turned to Emballage Canfab’s counterclaim for 3 784,02 $, representing employees’ time spent addressing the infestation problem. As with any claimant, Canfab bore the burden of proving both the fact of its loss and its quantum. While the company provided a narrative description and a list of the time invested by certain employees in extermination and remediation tasks, it did not file supporting accounting or payroll documentation. There were no pay records, invoices, or detailed cost calculations to substantiate the claimed figure. Applying the same evidentiary principles, the court held that it was not enough to assert that time had been invested; the value of that time had to be proven through adequate documentation. In the absence of such proof, the court found that Canfab had not discharged its burden and refused to grant the counterclaim.

Outcome and financial consequences

In its operative conclusions, the court dismissed the principal claim of Entretien Héroux inc., finding that Emballage Canfab inc. was justified in terminating the services contract without giving the 30-day notice because serious cause had been established. The court ordered costs of justice (legal costs) against Entretien Héroux in respect of the main claim, but the judgment did not specify a dollar amount for those costs. At the same time, the court dismissed Emballage Canfab’s counterclaim for 3 784,02 $ due to insufficient proof of the actual monetary value of the employees’ efforts, ordering that dismissal without costs. The overall result is that neither party obtained a monetary award or damages. Emballage Canfab inc. is effectively the successful party on the core contractual issue, as it successfully defended against the claim for the 30-day notice and preserved its right to terminate immediately for cause. However, because the decision specifies no amounts for costs and denies Canfab’s counterclaim in full, the total monetary award in favour of any party cannot be determined from the judgment, and no damages or specific sum beyond unspecified costs of justice were expressly ordered in its favour.