Case information

Civil liability — Professional misconduct — Punitive damages — Contract for services — Concept of “merchant” under Consumer Protection Act — Concept of “professional” under Consumer Protection Act — Concept of “professional” under Professional Code — Where penal court (Court of Québec) found that respondents are not professionals within meaning of Professional Code, whether civil court hearing action subsequently (Quebec Superior Court) can adopt opposite position under same code with respect to same facts and same parties without risk of conflict between judgments — Legal framework applicable to contractual relationship between consumers and non professionals in Quebec, Canada, or, in other words, legislation applicable to contractual relationship for services between consumers and non professionals in Quebec: whether Civil Code of Québec or Consumer Protection Act applies — Approach that lower courts should take in establishing or rebutting presumption of prejudice arising from existence of prohibited practice according to teachings of Supreme Court’s decision in Richard v. Time Inc., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 265 — Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P 40.1 — Professional Code, CQLR, c. C 26.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants, Arlette Adjovi Adingni and Horacio Sedjro Quenum, hired the respondent Ariel Chokki, an accountant and tax specialist working for the respondent Colour Dome Montréal Cabinet de Services Conseils inc. (“Colour Dome”), to prepare some of their tax returns. In May 2017, the applicants received a request for information and documents from Revenu Québec for the child care expenses reported in their respective returns for 2013 and 2014. Because they were not satisfied with the answers provided by Mr. Chokki, the applicants did not follow through on the request from Revenu Québec, which was claiming reimbursement from them of advance payments for child care expenses, with interest and penalties. The applicants then brought a civil liability action against the respondents, alleging professional misconduct in the preparation of their 2013 and 2014 tax returns. The applicants claimed the amounts demanded by Revenu Québec as well moral damages, punitive damages and reimbursement of their extrajudicial fees. The respondents, for their part, filed a cross application claiming damages based on the defamatory nature of certain allegations in the originating application, which thus allegedly harmed their reputations. The Superior Court dismissed the applicants’ originating application and allowed the respondents’ cross application in part. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents $5,000. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.