A Whitehorse marketing agency lost its claim for a final $24,402.25 consulting payment after the Small Claims Court of Yukon found that staying within a project estimate did not establish a right to the remaining money.
Judge Gagnon dismissed MBDC Communications Inc.’s claim against the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society of Yukon. The agency had not provided enough objective information about its work to show that the additional payment was reasonable, beyond the amounts already paid.
The June 18 decision, MBDC Communications Inc. v. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society of Yukon, 2026 YKSM 7, turned on the parties’ different understandings of their arrangement and the evidence supporting the final invoice.
Different expectations about a flexible project
MBDC helped the society, known as FASSY, take over the management of two supportive residences. Its estimate set out proposed work, a timetable and total costs of $97,760. The agency billed $73,357.75 for services up to August 1, 2025, then sent the disputed invoice in November.
The parties had no formal written agreement. MBDC viewed the estimate as flexible and said it concentrated on the support the transition needed, rather than strict timekeeping. FASSY expected the listed services to be delivered, while accepting that the timetable could change.
MBDC acknowledged that it had not provided marketing and communications services or incurred printing and advertising expenses. It said other work had taken priority and benefited the society.
FASSY disputed the final bill because it lacked detail and some proposed services had not been delivered. The society’s executive director had also understood an earlier invoice, accompanied by a document labelled as a final report, to mark the end of the work.
The judge found that the relationship had been based on trust and goodwill. Both sides wanted the project to succeed, and FASSY had paid earlier generic invoices without asking for a breakdown. MBDC had not notified the society that it needed to change the allocation of the budget or the schedule of deliverables.
The estimate was not an entitlement to the balance
Gagnon concluded that the estimate was not a binding agreement to pay the full $97,760, or invoices up to that amount. The parties understood their obligations differently, and the evidence did not establish an intention to treat the estimate as a formal contract.
The court then considered whether MBDC could recover the reasonable value of additional work through quantum meruit, a remedy concerned with compensation for services where no contract governs.
The final invoice matched the difference between the estimate and the amounts already paid. But that arithmetic did not show what additional compensation the work justified.
A later list of completed tasks did not identify when the services were performed, how much time they took or how many people did them. The trial testimony did not resolve those gaps.
Although FASSY’s failure to raise concerns earlier may have suggested agreement with MBDC’s approach, the agency still had to prove its claim. The court could not determine whether the final payment was reasonable and dismissed the claim. It did not find that MBDC had performed no valuable work.
