Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec (FMSQ) applied to transfer its case from the judicial district of Montréal to the judicial district of Québec under article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Article 48 C.p.c. permits a transfer only in exceptional circumstances, in the interest of the parties or third parties, or where other serious grounds require it.
• Court congestion in the Montréal district was advanced as justification, but the court found this did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting transfer.
• Procedural delays were largely attributable to the parties' own choices, including incidental motions, requests for anonymization of affidavits, objection debates, and postponements initiated by the FMSQ.
• Insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the Québec district was a more natural or appropriate forum, given that both parties maintained offices in Montréal.
• Granting transfers solely to address judicial backlog risks displacing the problem to other districts rather than resolving it.

Facts of the case

On October 22, 2024, the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec (FMSQ) filed an application for injunction and judicial review in the judicial district of Montréal, seeking recognition of violations of the fundamental rights of specialist physicians. The FMSQ chose Montréal as the forum because it and its counsel maintained their place of business there. On April 17, 2026, the FMSQ filed a motion to transfer the case to the judicial district of Québec, arguing that the matter had stalled and that proceeding in Québec would allow certain issues — particularly those involving witnesses from the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux and the Secrétariat du Conseil du trésor — to be resolved more quickly.

Procedural clause at issue

The central procedural provision was article 48 C.p.c., which authorizes the chief justice to order a transfer to another judicial district in exceptional circumstances, in the interest of the parties or third parties, or where other serious grounds require it. The court confirmed that such a transfer is an exceptional measure, to be assessed against the guiding principles of proportionality and sound case management under articles 9 and 18 C.p.c.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Chief Justice Marie-Anne Paquette acknowledged the well-known problem of court congestion in the Montréal district but found that a transfer order under article 48 C.p.c. was not the appropriate remedy. The court reasoned that granting transfers on this basis alone would incentivize litigants to seek similar orders, merely displacing the backlog to other districts without resolving the underlying problem. The court further found that the FMSQ had not demonstrated that the Québec district was a truly more appropriate forum: the FMSQ had its place of business in Montréal, and the Procureur général du Québec (PGQ) also maintained an office there. The case concerned the fundamental rights of specialist physicians across Québec — not limited to the Québec district — and more than half of the province's population resided in or near the Montréal district. As for the presence of potential witnesses in Québec, the court noted that the transfer application did not specify the number of witnesses to be called, making this factor insufficient to establish a more natural forum.

The court also addressed the FMSQ's allegation that its case management notice had gone unresolved for over a year, finding that this characterization did not accord with the procedural record. Following the FMSQ's announcement of stay applications on November 19, 2025, the management notice was set aside by agreement to allow the parties to focus first on the stay proceedings. It was not until March 11, 2026, that the FMSQ's counsel sought to have the management notice heard. The coordinating judge, the Honourable Frédéric Pérodeau, convened the parties on March 18, 2026, and rejected the application on March 24, 2026. Additionally, a stay hearing originally scheduled for December 16–18, 2025, was postponed to January 26–27, 2026, and ultimately abandoned by the FMSQ following legislative amendments. The court found that the various procedural incidents — including requests for particulars, anonymization of affidavits, objection debates, preliminary motions, and the FMSQ's own adjournments — had substantially contributed to the delays, and that similar delays would have occurred regardless of which district was handling the file.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court rejected the FMSQ's transfer application, finding that the grounds advanced did not satisfy the exceptional threshold required by article 48 C.p.c. The Procureur général du Québec was the successful party on this motion. Costs were awarded against the FMSQ; however, no specific monetary amount was stated in the judgment.