Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• René Grand Maison filed a claim against Stéphane Audet for $4,000.00 for the alleged non-payment of a used traction motor.
• At issue is whether a defendant in a small claims matter may request a transfer to a different courthouse within the same judicial district.
• Article 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to request referral to a different judicial district, not merely a different courthouse.
• Both Val-d'Or and Amos are located within the same judicial district of Abitibi, making the transfer request procedurally unavailable under the C.p.c.
• Jurisdiction over the claim was also examined in relation to where the contract of sale was formed, pursuant to Articles 1386 to 1388 C.c.Q.
• The court found that the contract was concluded in Senneterre, where Grand Maison received Audet's acceptance of his offer.

Facts of the case

On May 28, 2026, the Honourable Gabriel Gaudreault, J.C.Q. of the Court of Québec (Small Claims Division), District of Abitibi, sitting at Val-d'Or, rendered judgment in the matter of Grand Maison c. Audet, 2026 QCCQ 2444. René Grand Maison filed a claim against Stéphane Audet seeking payment of $4,000.00 for the sale of a used traction motor that Audet allegedly failed to pay. Grand Maison filed his claim in the District of Abitibi at the Val-d'Or courthouse. Audet responded by requesting a transfer of the file to the Amos courthouse, asserting that Amos is closer to his domicile. Grand Maison opposed the transfer, noting that he resides in Senneterre and that the distance to Val-d'Or is roughly equivalent to what Audet would travel to Amos.

Contractual and procedural provisions at issue

The court considered Article 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.p.c.), which establishes the defendant's domicile as the presumed jurisdiction for civil proceedings. Article 547 C.p.c. was also central to the analysis, as it governs a defendant's options in small claims proceedings. The relevant portion of Article 547 provides that, in the event of a contestation, a defendant may request "the rejection of the claim or the referral of the file to another judicial district or before another judicial court or before the competent administrative tribunal, or request that the matter be heard before the same court, but following the rules of Title I.1 of this book." The court emphasized that the provision specifically contemplates a change of judicial district, not merely a change of courthouse. Additionally, Articles 1386 to 1388 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.) were applied to determine where the contract of sale was formed.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court drew directly on Allaire c. Murray, 2022 QCCQ 5893, a decision by the Honourable Lucie Morissette of the Court of Québec, which addressed a materially identical situation. In that case, a claimant had filed at the Rimouski courthouse and the defendant sought transfer to the Matane courthouse — both of which were within the same judicial district of Rimouski. Justice Morissette concluded that Article 547 C.p.c. contemplates only a change of judicial district, not a change of courthouse within the same district. The court in the present case found the circumstances identical: both Val-d'Or and Amos fall within the Abitibi judicial district, meaning Audet's request for a courthouse transfer was simply not available under the C.p.c. The court also examined whether the contract had been concluded in Senneterre, as Grand Maison alleged. Applying Articles 1386 to 1388 C.c.Q., the court determined that a contract is formed where the offeror receives the offeree's acceptance. Since Grand Maison — the offeror — was in Senneterre when he received Audet's acceptance of the $4,000.00 offer, the contract was formed there. The court noted this explains why Grand Maison chose to file in the District of Abitibi at Val-d'Or, and that it would have been open to him, had the districts been different, to file in the district where the contract was concluded, as provided under Article 42(1) C.p.c. The court further noted that the burden of proving such jurisdictional exceptions rests on the claimant.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court rejected Audet's motion for referral, finding it legally unavailable under Article 547 C.p.c. No costs were awarded. The decision is procedural in nature — the court ruled on the transfer request only and did not adjudicate the underlying claim of $4,000.00. Grand Maison was the successful party on the referral motion, with no monetary amount ordered at this stage of the proceedings.