Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterisation of the cruise booking as a consumer contract and its impact on Quebec courts’ jurisdiction despite an international element and a foreign carrier.
• Validity and enforceability of a unilateral, English-only “Guest Ticket Contract” containing a Florida forum selection clause accepted online months after purchase.
• Applicability of the Athens Convention regime (as incorporated into Canadian maritime law) to a claim for itinerary changes made before departure, as opposed to bodily injury or baggage loss during carriage.
• Determination of whether article 17 of the Athens Convention can oust Quebec jurisdiction where essential triggering conditions of that Convention are not met.
• Reach of article 3149 C.c.Q. protecting Quebec consumers from pre-dispute waivers of access to Quebec courts in international consumer contracts.
• Extent to which the domicile of Quebec-resident consumers suffices to found jurisdiction of the Cour du Québec, Small Claims Division, in a cross-border cruise dispute.

Factual background
The dispute arises from a cruise holiday purchased by four Quebec-resident consumers from Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL). On 6 March 2024, the plaintiffs (Roger Dayan and his co-plaintiffs) booked a cruise with NCL scheduled to depart from London on 6 June 2024 and arrive in Barcelona, Spain on 16 June 2024. The booking covered two couples, each paying a total cruise price of $3,476.50 and together claiming $5,000 in compensation (allocated as $2,500 per couple) in the small claims proceeding. After booking, but before the cruise, NCL altered the planned itinerary. On 23 May 2024, NCL notified the plaintiffs that the stops at Porto (Portugal) and Gibraltar (Spain) were removed from the route. The cancellation of the Paris stop was only announced on the day of embarkation. The plaintiffs allege contractual prejudice arising from these changes to the services originally promised—specifically, the removal of several ports of call in Europe that had formed part of the advertised itinerary. Their small claims action seeks a monetary award to compensate for this diminished value of the cruise experience.

Procedural history
On 18 September 2024, plaintiff Roger Dayan filed a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Cour du Québec seeking $5,000 from NCL due to the itinerary changes. On 13 November 2024, the claim was amended to add the other three plaintiffs, and they are collectively referred to as the plaintiffs. NCL responded with a defence and, on 27 February 2025, filed a pleading including a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Demande en rejet pour absence de compétence) under article 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure. NCL’s core procedural thesis was that the Quebec Small Claims Division lacked jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs were required to sue in Miami, Florida. The court, presided over by the Honourable Mélanie Jacques, J.C.Q., heard the jurisdictional challenge on 1 December 2025 and rendered its judgment on 29 January 2026. The decision deals only with the preliminary question of jurisdiction, not the merits of liability or quantum of damages.

Contractual documents and jurisdiction clause
When the plaintiffs booked the cruise on 6 March 2024, they did so through NCL and later received a written invoice on 7 March 2024. That invoice contained certain key information such as insurance details and embarkation conditions, but it did not specify the competent jurisdiction or applicable law in the event of a dispute. Instead, the invoice referred the plaintiffs to additional terms and conditions and to a “legally binding Guest Ticket Contract” available on NCL’s website. To access this, the plaintiffs had to visit NCL’s site and navigate to the correct links. Only on 16 May 2024—more than two months after receiving the invoice and long after the original purchase—did the plaintiffs formally accept the terms and conditions of the Guest Ticket Contract online, printing their travel documents the next day. The Guest Ticket Contract itself is a 15-page document, entirely in English, dated “2/2023,” without signatures or any indication of the authority that drafted it. It contains numerous unilaterally imposed terms and is drafted in a dense, complex style, leaving no room for negotiation by passengers. Article 15 of the Guest Ticket Contract provides that any and all disputes are governed exclusively by the general maritime law of the United States and that any action must be commenced, filed and litigated before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. This provision forms the basis of NCL’s argument that the Quebec court must decline jurisdiction. However, the court notes there is no evidence that the Guest Ticket Contract, including its forum selection clause, was brought to the plaintiffs’ attention at the time of contract formation or before 16 May 2024. The judge finds that the plaintiffs did not provide informed consent to these externally hosted online terms at the time of purchase. The court characterises the underlying agreement as a contract for services—specifically a cruise contract—that also qualifies as a consumer contract under article 1384 of the Civil Code of Québec and appears, on its face, to be a contract of adhesion within the meaning of article 1379 C.c.Q. This consumer and adhesion-contract framing becomes central to the jurisdiction analysis.

Arguments on jurisdiction and applicable law
NCL advances a two-pronged jurisdictional challenge. First, it argues that the contract is governed by Canadian maritime law and the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Athens Convention), as incorporated into Canadian law through the Marine Liability Act regime. It relies on article 17 of the Athens Convention, which limits the courts before which actions can be brought to certain specified fora: the court of the defendant’s habitual residence or principal place of business; the court of the place of departure or destination; the court of the plaintiff’s domicile or residence, but only if the defendant has an establishment there and submits to that jurisdiction; or the court of the place where the contract was concluded, again subject to the carrier having an establishment and being subject to that state’s jurisdiction. NCL asserts that none of these options confer jurisdiction on Quebec courts because NCL, a company registered in Bermuda with its principal place of business in Miami, has no place of business or office in Quebec, and the cruise’s ports of embarkation and disembarkation are in Europe. Therefore, it says, the action should instead be brought in the United States or Europe. Second, NCL invokes article 15 of the Guest Ticket Contract, insisting that this forum selection clause obliges the plaintiffs to litigate exclusively in the Southern District of Florida. NCL maintains that the plaintiffs’ Quebec residence alone is insufficient to ground the jurisdiction of Quebec courts. For their part, the plaintiffs contend that the contract is clearly a consumer contract and that, by virtue of article 3149 C.c.Q., Quebec courts (and specifically the Small Claims Division of the Cour du Québec) are competent to hear the dispute because they are Quebec-domiciled consumers. They also point to guidance purportedly obtained from the Office de la protection du consommateur affirming Quebec’s jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis of the Athens Convention
The judge begins by examining the relevance of the Athens Convention to the jurisdiction question and concludes that it is of no assistance in resolving the present dispute. While Canada has not formally ratified the Athens Convention or its later protocols as a treaty, Parliament has incorporated articles 1 to 22 of the Convention, as amended by the 1990 Protocol, into domestic law through the Marine Liability Act (Loi sur la responsabilité en matière maritime). These provisions have the force of Canadian law and establish a special liability regime for maritime passenger carriage under specified conditions. The court outlines the necessary preconditions for the Athens regime to apply: there must be a contract of carriage of passengers by sea linking the carrier and passenger; the ship must fly the flag of a contracting state, or the contract must have been concluded in a contracting state, or the place of departure or destination must be in a contracting state (with the Marine Liability Act extending its reach to certain domestic Canadian voyages); the damage must occur during the “period of carriage,” i.e., while the passenger or baggage is on board, embarking, disembarking, or being transported by water between shore and ship; the harm must arise from death or bodily injury to a passenger, loss of or damage to baggage, or delay in its redelivery; and liability must be attributable to fault or negligence of the carrier or its servants or agents. The court notes that several of these essential conditions are not satisfied. The plaintiffs’ claim does not concern a harmful event occurring during carriage by ship, nor does it relate to death, bodily injury, or baggage loss, damage or delay. It is instead a contractual claim for monetary compensation stemming from modifications to the services promised, specifically changes to the cruise itinerary announced before departure. Because the factual matrix falls outside the defined scope of the Athens regime, article 17 of the Athens Convention—concerning jurisdiction—is inapplicable. Accordingly, the court holds that the Athens Convention cannot be used to oust Quebec jurisdiction in this case.

Quebec consumer protection and jurisdictional rules
Having set aside the Athens Convention as a jurisdictional determinant, the court turns to Quebec’s private international law rules in the Civil Code of Québec. The judge emphasises that the task is not to decide the substantive law governing the merits—whether Canadian maritime law, Quebec civil law, or some foreign law—but rather to decide whether the Cour du Québec, Small Claims Division, is a competent forum given the international context. The Guest Ticket Contract, with its Florida forum clause, is scrutinised closely. The court underscores its unilateral, non-negotiated nature, its complexity and language (English only), and the fact that the plaintiffs only accepted it online many weeks after purchasing their cruise. Against this backdrop, the court treats the relationship as a contract of consumption and likely a contract of adhesion. Article 3149 C.c.Q. plays a decisive role. It provides that a consumer whose domicile or residence is in Quebec cannot be held to a prior renunciation of the jurisdiction of Quebec authorities and that Quebec courts are competent to hear an action founded on a consumer contract if the consumer has his or her domicile or residence in Quebec. In other words, for Quebec consumers, jurisdiction can be based simply on their Quebec domicile or residence, and any clause purporting in advance to deprive them of access to Quebec courts is inopposable. The plaintiffs are consumers residing in Quebec. On this basis, the judge concludes that the Cour du Québec has jurisdiction over their claim despite the Florida forum clause and despite NCL’s lack of a physical place of business in the province. The decision further notes that this conclusion stands even if, at a later stage, another court were to determine that federal maritime law applies to the substantive issues, because federal legislation on the jurisdiction of courts (such as the Federal Courts Act) and prior case law recognise that provincial courts may adjudicate maritime matters.

Finding on Quebec courts’ jurisdiction and outcome
In the result, the court rejects NCL’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Small Claims Division of the Cour du Québec is held to be a competent forum to hear the plaintiffs’ consumer claim based on the cruise contract. The judge orders that the matter proceed to a case management conference, scheduling the parties to appear on 24 March 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom 14.10 at the Montreal courthouse. The judgment concludes with “le tout, sans frais,” meaning that no costs are awarded in connection with the jurisdictional motion. In this preliminary practice decision, the successful party is the group of plaintiffs (the consumers), as their choice of Quebec forum is upheld and NCL’s attempt to divert the dispute to Florida is defeated. However, the court does not address the merits of the claim or fix any compensation at this stage, so no damages, costs, or other monetary amounts are ordered in their favour; the total monetary award in this judgment is therefore zero, and any future recovery (if any) cannot yet be determined.