A small non-profit operator providing vocational training programs in a mid-sized Ontario city entered into a services agreement 14 months ago with a consulting firm that specializes in curriculum development for workforce readiness programs. The agreement called for the consulting firm to deliver a complete suite of training materials, instructor guides, and assessment tools over a 6-month period, with payments structured in 3 installments totalling $87,000. The non-profit paid the first 2 installments, amounting to $58,000, on schedule. The consulting firm delivered preliminary drafts of approximately 40 percent of the promised materials by the end of month 4, then communication from the firm's principal became sporadic. Emails went unanswered for weeks at a time. Promised revisions arrived late or not at all. The final installment of $29,000 was withheld by the non-profit when it became clear the deliverables would not be completed on time.

The non-profit's executive director raised concerns directly with the consulting firm's principal in a series of phone calls over the following 3 months. During these calls, the principal offered various explanations — staff turnover, technical difficulties, personal health matters — and repeatedly assured the executive director that the remaining materials would be delivered within 2 to 4 weeks. These assurances were not put in writing, and the executive director did not document the substance of the calls at the time. No formal extension to the contract was executed. The 6-month delivery deadline passed without completion.

The consulting firm eventually stopped responding to communications altogether. The non-profit engaged a bookkeeper to reconcile its accounts and discovered that the incomplete deliverables had already been partially integrated into a pilot training cohort, creating additional complications. The non-profit's board of directors now faces a decision about how to proceed. The organization has limited cash reserves and cannot afford protracted legal proceedings. The board has received conflicting informal advice from contacts in the legal community about whether the amount at stake justifies litigation, whether the consulting firm has assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment, and whether waiting any longer to act could jeopardize the non-profit's ability to pursue the matter at all.

The executive director has drafted a letter to the consulting firm demanding return of the $58,000 paid, but the board has not yet approved sending it. Questions have arisen about what the letter should contain, whether further negotiation is advisable, what deadlines apply to bringing a legal claim, and whether commencing litigation would serve the organization's interests even if a valid claim exists.