Jing (Catherine) Ou

August 4, 2024August 8, 2024

Statutory Interpretation in Québec: The Elected Domicile Indicated in the Québec Enterprise Register Cannot Provide a Basis for Territorial Jurisdiction of the Courts – #78

In the last few weeks, I have joined the Hong Kong Canada Business Association as a board member, looking forward to leveraging my legal expertise and problem-solving abilities to support our members to achieve their business goals. I also watched Inside Out 2 in the cinema, and I loved it. When the trailer only showcases the four new emotions — anxiety, envy, embarrassment and ennui — I noticed that nostalgia and sarcasm also flashed through Riley’s mind! I can’t wait to watch Inside Out 3, where I hope more interesting emotions, such as courage, calmness and gratitude, will develop in Riley’s system.

This post aims to report the Quebec Court of Appeal judgment on Promark Electronics Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products inc., 2024 QCCA 906 rendered on July 11, 2024, in which the Court confirms that the territorial jurisdiction of courts (Art. 41 para. 3 Code of Civil Procedure) is established based on the elected domicile provided for in Art. 83 Civil Code of Québec, but not based on the election of domicile indicated in the Québec Enterprise Register under the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises (“ALPE”). In other words, when the defendant is a legal entity, although we may serve a legal proceeding to the defendant at its elected domicile indicated in the Québec Enterprise Register, the Court having territorial jurisdiction to hear the case is the Court of the defendant’s head office that carries business activities or if applicable, to their elected domicile stated in the written contract.

June 23, 2024June 23, 2024

L’affaire Promutuel : L’exclusion de couverture dans la police d’assurance n’empêche pas la Cour d’ordonner à l’assureur de défendre son assuré pour l’ensemble du litige – #77

Cet article vise à résumer le jugement rendu par la Cour d’appel du Québec concernant l’obligation de défendre de l’assureur prévue à l’article 2503 du Code civil du Québec (Promutuel Vallée du St-Laurent, société mutuelle d’assurance générale c. Noyrigat-Gleye, 2024 QCCA 447). Il s’agit d’un appel d’un jugement de la Cour supérieure du Québec ayant accueilli une demande de type Wellington. La demande de type Wellington est une requête en jugement déclaratoire visant à contraindre l’assureur à prendre fait et cause pour son assuré.

Les faits pertinents

M. Bélanger poursuit ses voisins au motif que ceux-ci auraient coupé des arbres, modifié le dénivèlement du terrain et construit un mur de soutènement sur sa propriété. M. Bélanger réclame des dommages-intérêts compensatoires et punitifs aux termes de la Loi sur la protection des arbres, ainsi que deux injonctions permanentes visant le démantèlement du mur de soutènement et le rétablissement du dénivelé de l’immeuble.

April 14, 2024April 14, 2024

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Investment Arbitral Award in Québec: Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria – #76

It’s getting warmer outside. People are starting to talk about their summer plans. I have been enjoying drafting argumentation plans for numerous trials and hearings in the Québec courts in the last few months. I am also getting some precious opportunities to draft Notice of Application, Statement of Claim and Notice of Motion for some litigation files in Ontario, a common law jurisdiction.

Last weekend, when I was sipping on my coffee beside the windows, I happened to read the judgment rendered by the Honorable Chantal Corriveau, J.S.C. on Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. c. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2024 QCCS 988 and the judgment rendered by the Honorable David R. Collier, J.S.C. Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. c. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2023 QCCS 791. These two judgments show us how the Québec judiciary facilitates the execution of a foreign investment arbitral award, Zhongshan Fucheng v. Nigeria, rendered by a three-arbitrators tribunal in London, United Kingdom on March 26, 2021. These judgments also bring us to revisit the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the “New York Arbitration Convention” and State Immunity Act, RSC 1985, c S-18.

September 24, 2023

Latent Defect and Its Consequential Amount of Prejudice Suffered by the Buyers in the Real Estate Transaction – #75

In the last few months, I have been working on various real estate and construction related litigation files. As the proverb goes, “qui terre a guerre a”. I have learned a lot from my competent and wise colleagues. As always, I keep reading newly published judgments and doctrines to prepare myself for the unpredictables. This post aims to summarize the analysis of the Honorable Jeffrey Edwards, J.S.C. on the Gestion NW inc. c. Yin, 2023 QCCS 1843.

Factual Background

In or around October 2017, the Plaintiff Mr. Wakil was looking for an investment rental property. He is a medical surgeon. Due to his busy professional practice, he was looking to acquire a property that would not require a significant time commitment on maintenance and renovation after purchase. When he was introduced of the property of the Defendant, Ms. Yin, he learnt from Defendant’s real estate agent that the Property was completely renovated on the three floors. The asking price on the listing was $1,168,000.00. The Property was presented as a quadruplex with four residential units that were leased to tenants.

January 22, 2023January 22, 2023

Referral to Arbitration in the Unique Circumstances of This Case would Jeopardize the Receiver’s Ability to Maximize the Recovery for the Creditors – #74

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its recent decision on Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 clarifies whether and in what circumstances a contractual agreement to arbitrate governed by the Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.55, should give way to the public interest in the orderly and efficient resolution of a court-ordered receivership under s. 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.C.S. 1985, c. B-3. A court may decline to grant a stay where the party seeking to avoid arbitration establishes that the arbitration agreement at issue is “void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” within the meaning of s. 15(2)” (See para. 34 of the Decision). In the context of bankruptcy and insolvency law, an arbitration agreement may be inoperative if enforcing it would compromise the orderly and efficient resolution of the receivership. It is worth to note that the Supreme Court of Canada reminds us that the exercise required to determine if a stay of proceedings should be granted in favour of arbitration is highly factual.

December 29, 2022December 31, 2022

L’affaire Greyhound : La demande en garantie intentée contre Garda par Greyhound et son assureur doit être renvoyée à l’arbitrage – #73

Cet article vise à résumer le jugement rendu par l’honorable Monsieur le juge Stéphane Davignon, j.c.q. le 28 juin 2022 concernant une demande en exception déclinatoire de la défenderesse / défenderesse en garantie Garda fondée sur la clause compromissoire (art. 26) et la clause d’élection de for (art. 17) dans l’Entente cadre qui intervient entre Greyhound et Garda le 2 novembre 2010 (Travelers Insurance Company of Canada c. Greyhound Canada Transportation, 2022 QCCQ 4746).

Devant les enseignements de la Cour suprême dans l’arrêt GreConet et de la Cour d’appel dans l’arrêt Société québécoise des infrastructures c. WSP Canada inc., 2016 QCCA 1756, Monsieur le juge Davignon, j.c.q. en conclut qu’il y a lieu de donner plein effet à la clause compromissoire prévue à l’Entente et partant, que la demande en garantie intentée contre Garda par Greyhound et son assureur doit être renvoyée à l’arbitrage (para. 28 de la Décision).

July 9, 2022July 9, 2022

CCAC’s Application to Intervene as a Friend of Court in Private Dispute Rejected for No Additional Useful Perspective could Assist the Court – #72

When a third person wishes to intervene as a friend of the court as per Art. 187 C.c.p. in a private dispute, the third person is required to convince the Court that it will offer an additional and useful perspective on the issues (particularly difficult and new) at stake that the parties are not able to submit themselves. In Mullen c. Nakisa inc., 2022 QCCS 1164, the Canadian Commercial Arbitration Center (“CCAC”)’s application to intervene as a friend of court is rejected by Mr. Justice Stéphane Lacoste, j.c.s. in or around April 2022 as in the Court’s view, CCAC’s observations on the international commercial arbitration rules and the operation of commercial arbitration in Québec could be the mere repetition of Nakisa’s positions in the hope of amplifying their importance.

June 12, 2022June 12, 2022

Arbitral Immunity: Court Confirms that Arbitral Immunity Applies to Any Action Challenging the Conduct of Arbitrators and Extends to the Arbitration Institutions that Administer Arbitration Services – #71

This post aims to summarize the reasoning of the Honorable Mark Phillips, j.c.s. on B Smart Technology Inc. c. American Arbitration Association, 2022 QCCS 1526.

Background

Plaintiff, B Smart, is a Québec company domiciled in Montreal which signed a Sales Agent Agreement with the Mise-en-cause Norstan, an American company domiciled in the State of Texas on October 3, 2007.

The Sales Agent Agreement contains an arbitration clause which provides that all disputes and claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement that are not settled by agreement of the parties shall be arbitrated according to the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter “AAA”).

May 23, 2022May 23, 2022

British Columbia Court of Appeal Emphasizes that Arbitrator’s Interpretation Should Remain Grounded in the Text of the Contract – #70

This post aims to summarize the analysis of the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s recent decision on Grewal v. Mann, 2022 BCCA 30. By dismissing an appeal of an order granting leave to appeal an arbitral award, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reminds us that in interpreting a contract, the arbitrator must not permit the factual matrix to “overwhelm” the words of the contract

April 10, 2022April 10, 2022

L’affaire Résidence Ville-Marie : La demande de l’annulation ou la révision d’une décision rendue par le CIUSSS Ouest doit être référée au tribunal d’arbitrage — # 69

Cet article vise à résumer le jugement rendu par l’honorable Monsieur le juge Barin, j.c.s. le 23 février 2022 concernant une demande en exception déclinatoire de la défenderesse fondée sur une clause d’arbitrage dans l’entente particulière intervenue entre la Résidence Ville-Marie («Résidence») et le Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Services Sociaux de l’Ouest-de-l’Île-de-Montréal («CIUSSS Ouest») (Résidence Ville-Marie c. Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Ouest-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, 2022 QCCS 591). La Cour nous enseigne que le différend soulevé par la Résidence doit être référé à l’arbitre. La question à savoir si la Décision du CIUSSS Ouest est une décision administrative non susceptible d’appel ou de contestation est en fin de compte une question mixte de droit et de fait qui nécessite plus qu’un examen superficiel de la preuve documentaire au dossier.