Pour les fins de la détermination de la juridiction des tribunaux québécois, les faits allégués dans la demande introductive d'instance sont tenus pour avérés

par Karim Renno
Renno Vathilakis Inc.

La partie qui conteste la juridiction des tribunaux québécois doit souvent porter une attention particulière à la preuve qui sera présentée lors de l'audition sur la question. C'est ainsi parce que les allégations de la demande introductive d'instance sont prises pour avérées à ce stade, de sorte que seule une preuve de la fausseté de ces allégations permettra à la Cour de les mettre de côté sur la question juridictionnelle. La décision rendue dans l'affaire 9510-8528 Québec inc. c. Are-Canada No. 5 Holdings, (2025 QCCS 4705) illustre bien ce principe.

Dans cette affaire, l'Honorable juge Jeffrey Edwards est saisi de l'exception déclinatoire produite par une des Défenderesses. Cette dernière conteste la juridiction des tribunaux québécois au motif que son siège social est situé en Californie et que les allégations de la demande introductive d'instance sont insuffisantes pour conférer juridiction aux tribunaux québécois à son égard.

La Défenderesse ne soumet aucune preuve à l'appui de son exception déclinatoire - même pas de déclaration assermentée à l'appui de sa contestation de la juridiction - ce qui est problématique aux yeux du juge Edwards puisque les faits allégués à la demande introductive d'instance doivent être pris pour avérés à ce stade:

[20] Plaintiffs invoke paragraph 3 of Article 3148 C.C.Q. They plead that, according to the allegations contained in the Originating Proceeding, the parties, including Alexandria, agreed to conclude a lease regarding the Leased Premises located in Quebec and that, as such, the Defendants, including Alexandria, were obliged to execute the legal contracts and documentation in Quebec in order to give effect to that agreement. The Plaintiffs allege that the agreement was made by Alexandria. They allege that Alexandria was bound to require that Are-Canada, its subsidiary, comply, respect and fulfill that agreement. Plaintiffs allege that the breach of the obligation to respect the agreement occurred in Quebec with respect to the Leased Premises, which are located in Quebec. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that the breach caused them damages in Quebec including losses resulting from Plaintiffs’ being unable to carry on the business at the Leased Premises.

[21] In the case of Spar Aerospace, the Supreme Court held that, at the stage of a declinatory exception, the facts alleged in the originating proceeding are held as true. The Supreme Court also held that Article 3148 C.C.Q. should receive a wide and liberal interpretation conferring upon Quebec Courts a solid jurisdictional basis.

[22] It is also settled law and acknowledged by all of the parties that individually any of the criteria enunciated at Article 3148(3) C.C.Q., namely a fault, including a contractual breach in Quebec, injury suffered in Quebec, an injurious act or omission in Quebec or an obligation arising from a contract to be performed in Quebec, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Quebec Courts. It is therefore not necessary that each of the criteria stated in Article 3148(3) C.C.Q. be established.

[23] Furthermore, the Quebec Court of Appeal has held that when parties are acting together, carry out interconnected actions in relation to the criteria found at Article 3148(3) C.C.Q., the terms of that article are satisfied and that Quebec Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate.

[24] Alexandria’s Declinatory Exception is not supported by an affidavit. Plaintiffs were not given the opportunity to examine a representative of Alexandria regarding its contestation of the jurisdiction of the Quebec Courts.

[25] In light of the above, the Court concludes that the allegations contained in the Originating Proceeding, deemed as true at this stage, are sufficient to satisfy the conditions set out at Article 3148(3) C.C.Q. Accordingly, the Superior Court of Quebec has jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the dispute between the Plaintiffs and Alexandria.

Référence : [2026] ABD 6