R. in right of Newfoundland v. Commission Hydro-Electrique de Québec

R. in right of Newfoundland v. Commission Hydro-Electrique de Québec

The Quebec courts did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate or bind the Province of Newfoundland because the Power Contract's forum selection clause cannot confer jurisdiction over a non‑party and related instruments (including the trust deed) reserved disputes with Newfoundland to Newfoundland courts; however Hydro‑Québec had a sufficient real interest and a genuine legal question under art. 453 C.C.P. against Churchill Falls, and there was no lis pendens between the Quebec declaratory motion and the Newfoundland proceedings, so Churchill Falls' appeal was dismissed and Hydro‑Québec's motion to dismiss was properly allowed at trial level where jurisdiction over Newfoundland was not sought.

Citation
[1982] 2 SCR 79
Parties
Appellant; Mis En Cause: Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Newfoundland; Respondent: Commission Hydro-Electrique de Québec; Appellant; Respondent; Mis En Cause: Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited; Mis En Cause: Royal Trust Company; Mis En Cause: General Trust of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 August 1982
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec
Outcome
Appeal of Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Newfoundland allowed; appeal of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited dismissed.
Legal Topics
Declaratory Judgment, Jurisdiction of Courts, Forum Selection Clause, Declinatory Exception, Lis Pendens, Crown Immunity, Force Majeure/act of God, Service of Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Public/crown Law Jurisdictional Law Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction of Courts Forum Selection Clause Declinatory Exception +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of Newfoundland

Appellant; Mis En Cause

Commission Hydro-Electrique de Québec

Respondent

Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited

Appellant; Respondent; Mis En Cause

Royal Trust Company

Mis En Cause

General Trust of Canada

Mis En Cause

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract confers jurisdiction over a non‑party (jurisdiction ratione personae)
  2. 2 Whether Quebec courts had jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment binding the Province of Newfoundland
  3. 3 Whether Hydro‑Québec had sufficient interest and a genuine legal problem to obtain a declaratory judgment under art. 453 C.C.P.

Ratio Decidendi

The Quebec courts did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate or bind the Province of Newfoundland because the Power Contract's forum selection clause cannot confer jurisdiction over a non‑party and related instruments (including the trust deed) reserved disputes with Newfoundland to Newfoundland courts; however Hydro‑Québec had a sufficient real interest and a genuine legal question under art. 453 C.C.P. against Churchill Falls, and there was no lis pendens between the Quebec declaratory motion and the Newfoundland proceedings, so Churchill Falls' appeal was dismissed and Hydro‑Québec's motion to dismiss was properly allowed at trial level where jurisdiction over Newfoundland was not sought.

Court Disposition

Appeal of Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Newfoundland allowed; appeal of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal of Newfoundland allowed; decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the Superior Court allowing the declinatory exception restored; costs throughout.
  • Appeal of Churchill Falls dismissed; motion to dismiss (declaratory proceeding as against Churchill Falls) upheld; costs awarded (as per judgment).