The Court Of Québec's Jurisdiction Over Civil Matters Must Be Revised, Says The SCC

• Published date: 27 July 2021
• Law Firm: Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
• Author: Mr Éric Préfontaine, Francois Laurin-Pratte, Annie-Claude Authier and Evan Belfer

In a ruling dated June 30, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Québec to hear civil cases in which the value is less than $85,000 oversteps the bounds of constitutionality. Writing for the majority, the Honorable Justices C'té and Martin held that article 35 of the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) creates a prohibited "shadow" court that impinges on the Québec Superior Court's core jurisdiction.¹ The appeals were accordingly dismissed.²

Context

In August 2017, the Québec Government availed itself of the referral process to seek the opinion of the Québec Court of Appeal on two specific questions.

The first question concerned the monetary jurisdiction of the Court of Québec in civil matters in which the value is less than $85,000. The Court of Appeal concluded that the legislature may validly increase the amount of the Court of Québec's exclusive monetary jurisdiction as long as the increased amount does not effectively alter the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to hear "substantial claims". The Court of Appeal went on to determine that a limit of less than $85,000 was excessive and encroached on the protected sphere of the Superior Court. It concluded that the ceiling should be set between $55,000 and $70,000.

The second question concerned the constitutionality of applying the principle of judicial deference to appeals to the Court of Québec in the context of certain administrative decisions. The Court of Appeal held that the application of judicial deference to these appeals is compatible with section 96 of The Constitution Act, 1867 (the Constitution), as the Superior Court nevertheless retains its superintending and reforming power over administrative decisions. However, this second question has become moot as a result of the decision in Vavilov³ and the coming into force of article 83.1 of the Québec Courts of Justice Act. Thus, the Supreme Court refrained from addressing it.

For additional information on the Québec Court of Appeal's decision, please refer to our previous Osler Update

Reasons and conclusions of the Supreme Court of Canada

Two primary tests have arisen from the case law to assess whether a grant of jurisdiction is valid under section 96 of the Constitution. First, there is the historical test to determine whether the grant of jurisdiction affects a jurisdiction that has historically been exercised by the superior courts and cannot be granted to another court.⁴ Second...