Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional dispute over whether the Court of Québec may hear a defamation claim that includes a conclusion resembling a permanent injunction, or whether the matter falls exclusively within the Superior Court’s injunctive jurisdiction.
• Characterization of the plaintiff’s request to remove an allegedly defamatory article and publish a rectification as an “accessory” measure to a damages claim under article 35 C.C.P., rather than as an autonomous injunction under article 509 C.C.P.
• Interpretation of the expanded wording of article 35 C.C.P. (including “demandes qui leur sont accessoires portant notamment sur l’exécution en nature”) and its effect on the scope of the Court of Québec’s powers.
• Focus on the “essence” of the dispute (defamation and monetary compensation) as opposed to the formal wording of the conclusions, to determine the proper forum.
• Weight given to procedural conduct and timing: the plaintiff waited nearly a year after publication, sought no provisional or interlocutory injunction, and framed the removal/rectification as secondary to compensation for reputational harm.
• Determination that the requested order to remove the article and publish a rectification is a limited, ancillary remedial measure aimed at preventing continued or renewed harm, and does not displace the Court of Québec’s jurisdiction over the principal damages claim.

Factual background

The dispute arises from an article about Fraidon Hussainzada published by the Journal de Montréal on 29 October 2024, both in its print edition and on its digital platforms. According to Mr. Hussainzada, the article contains statements that are inaccurate, biased and defamatory. He alleges that these statements caused serious harm to his reputation and personal dignity. On the basis of this alleged defamation, he instituted civil proceedings seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In his originating application, he first claimed $75,000 in compensatory damages for the reputational injury he says he suffered following publication of the article. He also sought $24,000 in punitive damages under article 49 of the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, asserting that the violation of his protected rights warranted an exemplary award. During the course of the proceedings, an issue arose regarding the total amount claimed and the monetary jurisdiction of the Court of Québec. The defendant initially argued that the original aggregate amount of $100,000 slightly exceeded the statutory jurisdictional ceiling. To address this, Mr. Hussainzada amended his claim to reduce the total to $99,000, bringing it within the concurrent jurisdiction band where both the Court of Québec and the Superior Court may hear such claims, at the plaintiff’s election. The defendant did not oppose this amendment. In addition to money damages, the plaintiff’s application included a non-monetary conclusion directed at the newspaper. He asked the court to order the Journal de Montréal to remove the impugned article from all of its digital platforms and to publish an equivalent rectification under the supervision of the court. This request for removal and rectification was pleaded as part of the plaintiff’s overall attempt to repair and protect his reputation and to prevent continued harm from the ongoing online availability of the story.

Procedural history

The case was brought before the Civil Division of the Court of Québec, district of Longueuil. The Journal de Montréal (or its corporate entity MédiaQMI inc., which operates under that name) responded not by contesting the defamation allegations on the merits at this stage, but by attacking the court’s jurisdiction. The defendant filed a declinatory plea under article 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the presence of a conclusion that in substance sought a permanent injunction removed the matter from the jurisdiction of the Court of Québec. In the defendant’s view, the request to order immediate withdrawal of the article and publication of a rectification was, in essence, a claim for a permanent injunction governed by article 509 C.C.P. Since article 509 reserves injunctive relief to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court, the defendant asked that the whole matter be transferred out of the Court of Québec. The declinatory motion thus raised a threshold question: could the Court of Québec hear a defamation action seeking damages plus an order to remove content and publish a correction, or did the injunctive flavour of the requested order require that the entire case be dealt with only by the Superior Court? The hearing of the declinatory plea took place on 3 December 2025 before the Honourable Daniel Lévesque, J.C.Q., and judgment was rendered on 9 January 2026.

Legal issues

The central legal issue was the characterization of the plaintiff’s requested non-monetary relief and its impact on jurisdiction. The court had to determine whether the conclusion requesting removal of the article and publication of a rectification should be treated as:

• an injunction within the meaning of article 509 C.C.P., which would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court; or
• an accessory remedy attached to a principal claim for damages in defamation, within the meaning of article 35 C.C.P., which the Court of Québec has jurisdiction to hear.
  This required the court to interpret the scope of article 35 C.C.P., which confers on the Court of Québec exclusive jurisdiction for claims below a specified monetary threshold and concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court in a band just below $100,000. Importantly, article 35 states that the Court of Québec also hears “les demandes qui leur sont accessoires portant notamment sur l’exécution en nature d’une obligation contractuelle.” The modern wording is broader than its predecessor, and prior decisions have emphasized that “accessory” designates what is secondary to and dependent on a principal claim. The second key issue was the distinction between a true injunction and other types of “orders to do or not do something” that various courts and tribunals can issue in the exercise of their powers. Jurisprudence from the Court of Appeal explains that not every order requiring respect of an obligation is an injunction; otherwise, a vast number of proceedings would fall exclusively to the Superior Court. Instead, courts must look at the essence of the litigation rather than at the formal label attached to the conclusions. A third issue lay in the plaintiff’s procedural conduct and the timing of the relief sought. The court needed to consider whether the delayed filing of the action, the absence of any provisional or interlocutory injunction requests, and the limited scope of the non-monetary conclusion indicated that the order requested was truly ancillary to the principal dispute over damages, rather than a standalone injunctive proceeding. These elements were relevant to whether the contested conclusion could be legitimately viewed as an accessory measure designed to prevent the continuation or resurgence of alleged harm from the original publication.

Court’s analysis

In analysing jurisdiction, the Court of Québec began by confirming that it plainly has authority to hear defamation and reputation-based civil liability claims, so long as the quantum sought falls within its monetary limits under article 35 C.C.P. That threshold requirement was met, particularly following the amendment reducing the total claim to $99,000. The real difficulty came from the defendant’s contention that the removal and rectification order was an injunction under article 509 C.C.P. The court recapitulated the statutory definition and nature of injunctive relief: an injunction is an order, issued under a specific procedure, directing a person to do, cease doing, or refrain from doing a particular act, and it is reserved to the Superior Court. Nonetheless, the court emphasized that case law has consistently recognized that not every judicial order to do or not do something is an injunction in this sense. Appellate authorities explain that many tribunals have the power to issue coercive orders, and that even when such orders may ultimately be enforceable through contempt proceedings, this does not transform them into injunctions falling under the Superior Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. What matters is the nature of the proceeding and the legal framework that governs it, not simply the fact that an order to act or refrain from acting is requested. Building on this jurisprudence, the court highlighted the importance of identifying the “essence” of the dispute. The judge noted that if attaching any order to respect an obligation were enough to convert a case into an injunctive proceeding, a very large proportion of civil actions would shift automatically to the Superior Court, contrary to the legislative scheme that allocates a significant jurisdiction to the Court of Québec. Turning to the concept of “accessory” demands in article 35 C.C.P., the court relied on doctrinal and judicial interpretations that define an accessory claim as one that is secondary to, dependent on, and flows from a principal claim. The current wording of article 35, including the phrase “portant notamment,” was seen as an intentional broadening of the Court of Québec’s power to deal with a wide range of secondary remedies attached to principal claims within its monetary jurisdiction. While the provision explicitly mentions execution in kind of contractual obligations as an example, the use of “notamment” indicates that the examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. Applying these principles to the case, the judge examined the structure and content of the originating application. The primary object of the litigation was clearly the alleged defamation and the claim for compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the impugned statements were defamatory and that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful, followed by an award of monetary compensation. Within that framework, the conclusion asking for removal of the article and publication of a rectification appeared as an adjunct to the main claim—a remedial measure to mitigate or prevent ongoing harm arising from the same alleged wrongful publication. The court also placed weight on the procedural context. Mr. Hussainzada filed his action almost a year after the initial publication and did not seek any urgent provisional or interlocutory measures to restrain or halt publication in the interim. The text of the application did not allege fresh or distinct consequences resulting from the continued online presence of the article; instead, it focused on the harm that had occurred following the original publication. He was not seeking a broad order prohibiting future publications about him or imposing open-ended restrictions on the defendant’s editorial activity. These features suggested that the request for withdrawal and rectification was not the driving purpose of the lawsuit, but a limited, follow-on remedy attached to the main claim for damages. In light of this analysis, the judge concluded that the order sought was, in this particular context, an accessory measure within the meaning of article 35 C.C.P. It was designed to prevent the persistence or recurrence of harm rooted in the same alleged defamatory act, and it did not alter the essential character of the dispute, which remained a civil liability claim for defamation and Charter-based damages. Because the essence of the matter lay in a damages action over which the Court of Québec had jurisdiction, the court also had the authority to entertain and, if appropriate at the merits stage, to grant the requested accessory order.

Outcome and implications

On this basis, the Court of Québec rejected the defendant’s declinatory plea that challenged the court’s jurisdiction. The judge held that the case properly fell within the scope of article 35 C.C.P., that the plaintiff’s conclusions regarding removal of the article and publication of a rectification were accessory to the principal damages claim, and that the presence of such a conclusion did not transform the proceeding into an injunction reserved to the Superior Court. The immediate consequence of the decision is that the defamation action remains before the Court of Québec for adjudication on the merits. The judgment does not address or resolve liability for defamation, nor does it quantify or award compensatory or punitive damages; those issues are left to be determined at a later stage. Likewise, the court did not actually order the removal of the article or the publication of a rectification; it merely held that it had the jurisdictional power to consider granting such relief as an accessory measure should the plaintiff ultimately establish his claim. In this interlocutory judgment, the successful party is the plaintiff, Fraidon Hussainzada, as his choice of forum was upheld and the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge was dismissed. No damages, costs or monetary awards were ordered in his favour at this stage, and the total amount that may eventually be granted, if any, cannot yet be determined from this decision alone.