Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Territorial jurisdiction of the district of Saint-François was contested by two of the three defendants, each seeking transfer to a different district.
• Relais Nordik Inc. requested referral of the file to Rimouski, where its principal establishment is located, while 7852797 Canada Inc. sought referral to Montréal, where its head office is located.
• Under the general rule of the Code of Civil Procedure (art. 40), the competent jurisdiction is the place where a defendant is domiciled, though art. 42 permits the plaintiff to choose the place where the contract was concluded.
• According to the plaintiff's own allegations, the transport contract was concluded by the Centre de services scolaire du Littoral at Sept-Îles, not in Saint-François.
• Evidence in the pleadings indicated the vehicle was transported in two segments — by sea from Blanc-Sablon to Rimouski and by land from Rimouski to Orford — with the alleged damage occurring during the maritime segment.
• No valid connecting factor linked the dispute to the district of Saint-François, where the plaintiff had filed based on her residence.

Facts of the case

Francine Maillet claims $4,352.76 in damages from three defendants — Centre de services scolaire du Littoral, 7852797 Canada Inc., and Relais Nordik Inc. — in connection with the transport of her vehicle from Blanc-Sablon to Orford in July 2025. She filed her claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec in the judicial district of Saint-François, the place of her residence. All three defendants contest the claim on the merits and have also filed dismissal motions raising various grounds of inadmissibility specific to each of them. In addition, two defendants challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the district of Saint-François: Relais Nordik Inc. asks that the file be referred to Rimouski, where its principal establishment is located, and 7852797 Canada Inc. asks that it be referred to Montréal, where its head office is located. The parties had been convened to a hearing on July 7, 2026 to argue all of the referral and dismissal motions, but the Court determined that the referral motions could be decided on the record and had to be resolved first, since only the territorially competent court could dispose of the dispute by final judgment.

Contractual and procedural provisions at issue

This decision turns on jurisdictional rules of the Code of Civil Procedure rather than on the terms of the transport contract itself. Under the general rule (art. 40 C.C.P.), the competent court is that of the place where the defendant is domiciled, or where any one of several defendants is domiciled when they reside in different districts. In matters of performance of contractual obligations, the plaintiff may instead choose the jurisdiction of the place where the contract was concluded (art. 42 C.C.P.), and referral motions may be dealt with on the face of the record (art. 539.2 C.C.P.). According to the allegations in the claim, the transport contract giving rise to the dispute was concluded by the Centre de services scolaire du Littoral at Sept-Îles.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Judge Patrick Théroux, J.C.Q., found that there was no valid connecting factor between the dispute and the judicial district of Saint-François, where the plaintiff had filed solely on the basis of her residence, so the general rule had to apply. The pleadings showed that the vehicle was transported in two segments: a first segment by sea from Blanc-Sablon to Rimouski, carried out by Relais Nordik Inc., and a second segment by land from Rimouski to Orford, carried out by 7852797 Canada Inc. The plaintiff herself alleges that the damage was caused during the maritime transport performed by Relais Nordik Inc., meaning the vehicle would already have been damaged when 7852797 Canada Inc. transported it. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the most appropriate territorially competent jurisdiction was the judicial district of Rimouski.

Ruling and outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the referral motion presented by 7852797 Canada Inc., granted the referral motion presented by Relais Nordik Inc., ordered the transfer of the file to the judicial district of Rimouski at the Rimouski courthouse, and cancelled the hearing scheduled for July 7, 2026. Relais Nordik Inc. was therefore the successful party on this interlocutory question, though no monetary amount was awarded in its favour: the decision was rendered without legal costs, and the merits of Ms. Maillet's $4,352.76 damages claim remain to be decided by the court in Rimouski.