Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Arbitrability of disputes over employment non-competition clauses under art. 2639 C.c.Q., with arbitrability as the rule and inarbitrability as the exception

• Limited scope of “public order” exceptions and the effect of art. 2639(2) C.c.Q. confirming public-order rules do not bar arbitration agreements

• Threshold for summary dismissal of an appeal (art. 365 C.p.c.): no reasonable chance of showing a reviewable error in the referral to arbitration

• Choice-of-law (Ontario) combined with arbitration clause: insufficiency of assumptions that foreign law is less favorable or that arbitrators would ignore Québec connections

• Access-to-justice concerns distinguished from Uber; no evidence the clause impedes access to the arbitral process

• Consequence of granting dismissal motion: safeguard motion (art. 379 C.p.c.) rendered moot, costs awarded against the appellant

Facts
The appellant, Me Bernard Boucher, acting without counsel, challenges a first-instance judgment that referred a dispute involving the validity of a non-competition clause to arbitration (referenced as 2025 QCCS 1528). The respondent is the law firm Blake, Cassels & Graydon, represented by Me André Ryan and Me Gabrielle Lachance Touchette (BCF). In the Court of Appeal, the respondent moved to summarily dismiss the appeal (art. 365 C.p.c.), while the appellant sought a safeguard order (art. 379 C.p.c.) to halt steps in a newly initiated arbitration. The matter was heard on August 25, 2025, by Justices Martin Vauclair, Stephen W. Hamilton, and Frédéric Bachand, who rendered an oral judgment the same day.

Procedural posture
The trial judge had referred the dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the respondent sought dismissal on the basis that the appellant had no reasonable chance of demonstrating a reviewable error. The appellant, in turn, asked for an order preserving the status quo to prevent the arbitration from advancing pending the appeal.

Issues
The central questions were whether disputes about the validity of employment non-competition clauses are inarbitrable under art. 2639(1) C.c.Q., given public-order considerations, and whether the combined effect of an arbitration clause and a choice-of-law clause designating Ontario law undermines Québec’s protective rules and public policy. A further issue concerned whether access-to-justice concerns akin to those in Uber v. Heller were present.

Court’s analysis
The Court confirmed that arbitrability is the rule and inarbitrability the exception under art. 2639(1) C.c.Q.; the enumerated categories (status and capacity of persons and family matters) are narrowly construed and do not include disputes over non-competition clauses. The mere fact that rules governing such clauses are of public order does not, by itself, prevent arbitration, given art. 2639(2) C.c.Q. The Court emphasized that public-order review principally occurs after the arbitral process, when courts review an award, consistent with Desputeaux and related authorities. The appellant’s choice-of-law argument failed because it rested on unproven assumptions: that Ontario law would necessarily yield a less favorable result and that an arbitral tribunal would disregard Québec’s connections. The Court also distinguished Uber, noting no evidence that the arbitration clause impeded the appellant’s access to the arbitral forum.

Outcome
The Court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the appeal with costs, and declared the safeguard motion moot.