Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Quebec Superior Court raised, on its own motion, whether the file should be transferred from the Montreal judicial district to the Iberville judicial district under article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
   
• Plaintiffs opposed the transfer, arguing that the location of counsel's offices and one plaintiff's business activities justified keeping the file in Montreal.
   
• Defendants agreed with the plaintiffs' position but noted that one individual defendant regularly travels to Montreal for medical treatment.
   
• Case law establishes that the location of counsel's place of business is not a determinative factor in assessing a transfer request.
   
• All parties to the proceeding and the properties referenced in the originating application are located in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, within the Iberville district.
   
• Ultimately, the court found that the case's connecting factors point almost exclusively to Iberville and ordered the transfer without costs.
   

Facts of the case

This matter arises out of an originating application filed by 9321-5150 Québec inc. and Tristant Bourgeois-Cousineau on November 2, 2023, in the Montreal judicial district, seeking damages against 9150-1551 Québec inc., 9162-7505 Québec inc., Daniel Caputo, and Gene Guercio. The claim relates to acts allegedly committed by the defendants in carrying out agreements between the parties concerning buildings located in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, which falls within the Iberville judicial district. Presiding Chief Justice Marie-Anne Paquette raised, of her own motion, the question of whether the file should instead be transferred to the Iberville district, and invited the parties to submit written representations on the issue. The plaintiffs opposed a transfer, submitting that although Mr. Bourgeois-Cousineau is domiciled in the Iberville district, his business activities take place mainly in the Montreal region, and that the parties' respective counsel have their offices in Blainville and Montreal. They also noted that parties are free to agree on a judicial district for the conduct of proceedings, as is often done contractually. The defendants adopted the plaintiffs' arguments and added that Mr. Caputo, although he resides in the Iberville district, must frequently spend time in the Montreal district to receive medical treatment, and submitted that Montreal would be a more suitable venue should a specific application concerning him need to be brought in the future.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The central provision at issue is article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a chief justice, at any stage of a proceeding, to exceptionally order the transfer of a file, a hearing, or an application relating to the enforcement of a judgment to another district, even on the court's own motion, where the interests of the parties or affected third parties, or other serious reasons, warrant it. The court also considered the guiding principles of proportionality and sound case management found in articles 9 and 18 of the Code, which inform how a transfer request under article 48 should be assessed. The court further noted that the Code recognizes the validity of a forum-selection clause allowing parties to agree on the judicial district for a proceeding, but observed that no such agreement was alleged in the originating application or otherwise brought to its attention.

Reasoning and analysis

The court characterized a transfer request under article 48 as an exceptional measure, to be assessed in light of the interests of the parties and third parties, or serious reasons. It reiterated that the location of the parties' lawyers is not a determinative factor in this analysis. On the facts, the court found that the Montreal district had been chosen for reasons of convenience only, since the file had no connecting factor to that district. By contrast, all parties to the proceeding, as well as all the buildings referenced in the originating application, are located in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, within the Iberville district. While the court acknowledged Mr. Caputo's circumstances, including his ongoing medical treatment in Montreal, it noted that his out-of-court testimony had already been collected and would serve as his evidence at trial, and that the possibility of a future specific application concerning him remained hypothetical and could, in any event, be brought in the Iberville district. The court also relied on prior case law holding that the interests of justice call for a more rational use of judicial resources across the province, and that article 48 can be used to redirect matters to their more natural forum. It observed that filing actions in Montreal purely for convenience unduly concentrates judicial activity there, contributing to that district's caseload and affecting judicial delays.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court concluded that the circumstances of this file warranted the exceptional exercise of the transfer power under article 48, given that the connecting factors pointed almost exclusively to the Iberville judicial district. Ruling against the plaintiffs, who had sought to keep the file in Montreal, the court ordered the transfer of the file from the Montreal judicial district to the Iberville judicial district, with no monetary award, costs, or damages granted to either side — the decision was rendered without costs.