Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendant Profila Agence-Créative inc. filed an application seeking to have the matter referred, disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the Québec locality.
   
• Article 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure normally directs jurisdiction to the defendant's domicile, while article 42 para. 1(1) allows the plaintiff to instead choose the place of contract formation.
   
• Solutions Lotus asserted that the contract was concluded in Québec but did not submit supporting documents or explanations for that claim.
   
• Resolving the venue dispute requires a factual determination of where the agreement was actually concluded.
   
• Judge Charles Taschereau declined to decide the referral application on the existing record and instead ordered a civil practice hearing.
   
• No costs were awarded in connection with this procedural ruling.
   

Facts of the case

Solutions Lotus, as plaintiff, brought a small claims action against Profila Agence-Créative inc. in the Locality of Québec, District of Québec. The defendant responded by filing an application for referral, challenging whether the Québec locality was the proper venue for the proceeding. The dispute centred on where the underlying contract between the parties had been concluded, since that fact would determine which jurisdiction's rules on venue applied. Solutions Lotus maintained that the agreement was concluded in Québec, but the judge noted that this assertion was not accompanied by any supporting documents or explanations.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The judgment turns on two provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing territorial jurisdiction. Article 41 establishes that the competent jurisdiction is normally that of the place of the defendant's domicile. Article 42, paragraph 1(1), provides an exception permitting the plaintiff to instead choose the jurisdiction corresponding to the place where the contract was concluded. The interplay between these two articles was central to whether the Locality of Québec was the correct venue, given that Profila's domicile would ordinarily govern absent a valid basis for relying on article 42.

Reasoning and analysis

Judge Taschereau, sitting in chambers, found that the record before him did not permit a determination of where the contract had been concluded. Because Solutions Lotus's allegation that the agreement was concluded in Québec was unsupported by documentary evidence or explanation, the judge concluded that the question could not be resolved on the papers alone. He held that a hearing in civil practice was necessary so that a presiding judge could hear the parties' submissions and review any supporting documents they chose to file, before making a factual finding on the place of contract formation and, in turn, on the propriety of the referral application.

Ruling and overall outcome

Rather than ruling on the merits of the referral application itself, Judge Taschereau ordered that a hearing in civil practice be held so that the application could be properly submitted to and decided by the Court. He directed the court clerk to schedule this hearing according to the usual procedure, in coordination with the Civil Chamber Coordination of the Court of Québec. No party was declared successful at this stage, as the decision is procedural and interlocutory in nature, deferring the substantive venue determination to the scheduled hearing. The judgment was rendered without legal costs.