Newsletters

1,167

The Demand Letter: A Tool That Should Not Be Underestimated

Sending a demand letter is part of the usual process of most recovery files. It is sent at different points in time, depending on the way the claim is handled, and on the elements revealed during the investigation. People usually send it automatically, without necessarily understanding all of its implications. What is the actual purpose of the demand letter? What should it contain? Is it always mandatory? Here are a few reminders.

What is the purpose of the demand letter? What should it contain?

According to the Civil Code of Québec [CCQ], the creditor has the right to demand the performance of the obligation or any other measures provided by law, when the debtor fails to perform his obligation and is in default.[1]

The debtor may sometimes be in default by the terms of the contract between the parties or by the effect of the law.[2] When it is not the case, a written notice must be sent in order to remind him of the object of his obligation, the alleged breaches and the debtor must be given reasonable time to perform his obligation.

In addition to being an essential formality in certain situations, the demand letter also gives the debtor the possibility to comply with his obligation or to justify his default. It could also allow the parties to conclude an agreement and avoid proceedings in Court.

In this regard, one must be reminded that the parties have the duty to act in good faith at all time.[3] Thus, the creditor who refuses to give a chance to his debtor to remedy his default without justification could be criticized later by the Court. Also, the new Code of Civil Procedure, in force since 2016, specifically provides that the parties have the obligation to consider alternative means of resolving their disputes before resorting to the Courts. The demand letter, even when not required by law, may provide the opportunity to open up the lines of negotiation.

It is also used to set the starting point for calculating the legal interests and additional indemnity.[4]

Is it mandatory?

Article 1597 CCQ provides that the demand letter is not necessary in the following situations:

  • where the performance of the obligation would have been useful only within a certain time, which the debtor allowed to expire;
  • where the debtor failed to perform the obligation immediately, despite the urgency;
  • where the debtor has violated an obligation not to do;
  • where specific performance of the obligation has become impossible through the debtor’s fault;
  • where the debtor has made clear to the creditor his intention not to perform the obligation or where, in the case of an obligation of successive performance, he has repeatedly refused or neglected to perform it.

The creditor who alleges one of the above exceptions has the burden to prove it, both in contractual and extra-contractual matters.

Generally, the absence of a demand letter will not automatically lead to the dismissal of the action. If the debtor performs his obligation within a reasonable period of time following the filing of a legal action by the creditor, the judicial costs of the action are borne by the creditor, if the latter failed to send a  demand letter beforehand.[5]

However, there are some situations where the failure to send a notice in a timely manner could be fatal to the creditor’s recourse. Here are some examples:

  • Latent defect. A buyer who ascertains that the property is defective shall give notice in writing of the defect to the seller within a reasonable time after discovering it.
  • Warranty against eviction. A buyer who discovers a risk of infringement of his right of ownership shall give notice in writing to the seller within a reasonable time after discovering it. For example, this would apply to a buyer who discovers that his immovable is affected by a servitude that was not declared by the seller.
  • Specific obligation. A creditor wishing to avail himself of the right to have the obligation executed by a third party at the expense of the debtor shall notify him before the beginning of the execution by such party. For example, a creditor who intends to mandate a third party to repair faulty work shall allow his debtor to come and assess his pretentions before the repairs.
  • Extra-contractual recourse against a city. A person who intends to claim damages from a city for bodily injury or for damages to movable or immovable property shall send a written notice to the city clerk within 15 days from the date of the incident.

In these situations, the debtor will likely try to have the legal action dismissed, based on the failure of the creditor to forward a demand letter. Thus, the latter will have the burden to convince the Court that one of the exceptions provided by the law or the case law shall apply to relieve him from his default.

In sum, it is best to be prudent and to notify a debtor as soon as possible once the latter is in default. As the saying goes, better safe than sorry.

[1] Article 1590 CCQ.

[2] Articles 1594 and 1597 CCQ.

[3] Article 1375 CCQ.

[4] Articles 1600, 1617 and 1618 CCQ.

[5] Article 1596 CCQ.


1,167

Articles in the same category

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]

The Quarrelsome Litigant: When the Right to Sue Becomes a Scourge

Access to the courts is a fundamental right, but what happens when a person uses it not to assert legitimate rights, but to harass others or clog the system to excess? This is quarrelsomeness: the tendency to exercise one’s right to litigate in an excessive or unreasonable manner. Far from being a marginal phenomenon, it […]

Before Buying a Product, Read This: The Rules Are Changing on October 5!

On October 5, 2026, the final amendments to the Regulation amending the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulation“) are expected to come into force, completing the implementation of the new “good working order” warranty in the province of Quebec. When this warranty applies, the merchant or manufacturer will be required to repair […]

No Notice of Default, No Termination

In Pavage Wemindji Inc. v. Compagnie de Construction et de Développement crie ltée, the Quebec Superior Court emphasized that a valid notice of default (mise en demeure) is not just a formality—it’s a precondition to exercising remedies like contract termination in many cases under Quebec civil law. The Decision The plaintiff, Pavage Wemindji Inc. (“Wemindji”), […]