Your search

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Article 3136 C.c.Q. is a departure from the general rules of jurisdiction applicable to a Quebec authority. Based on the principle of necessity and in the absence of an appropriate forum, it authorizes an authority to exercise jurisdiction in relation to a matter not subject to its direct jurisdiction when it is impossible or unreasonable for the parties to access a foreign authority and when the litigation has a sufficient connection with Quebec. Article 3136 thus confers a discretionary jurisdiction on a Quebec authority. This discretion is limited by the definitional elements expressed in article 3136 and has been further narrowed by an inappropriate interpretation by the Court of Appeal in Lamborghini. The critical factor is that necessity jurisdiction implies that the litigation is subject to an effective remedy in the Quebec forum. Availability of an effective remedy renders reasonable the exercise of necessity jurisdiction and the requirement that foreign litigation be instituted, unreasonable. However, the factor of remedy is ignored, or without expression, in both doctrine and jurisprudence. Supported by a comparative approach between the civil law and the common law, the first part presents a general analysis of this exceptional rule with particular attention to the Swiss law which inspired the drafters of article 3136. In the second part, article 3136 is considered in context with the general provisions of the Code and the legislative history of the provision is clarified. The third part analyzes the definitional elements of the article and the last part examines its application as reflected in the relevant jurisprudence.

This article reviews the methods, rules and sources of interpretation relating to Quebec Civil Law. While the Civil Law utilizes many generally accepted interpretive methods and directives, it does so idiosyncratically. These distinctive applications, both methodological and fundamental, derive not only from the nature of the Civil Law itself but also from the process of codification. The writer insists that one should not lose sight of this fact when interpreting the new Civil Code.

The Preliminary Provision of the Civil Code of Québec refers to the concept of jus commune. Yet to just which jus commune is it referring ? The author reviews the historic multiplicity of jura communia in Europe, including the jus commune, the common law and the general law of France. The latter has become transnational in character with the French Civil Code as an important contemporary element, but also including the general principles of law. As such, the Civil code should thus take its place within the framework of a much broader transnational legal tradition.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

This article traces the evolution of the Canadian approach to privateinternational law from Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye to Castillo v. Castillo and identifiesfour major flaws that have significant implications for both privateinternational law and Canadian federalism: (1) ambiguous and inconsistentterminology that undermines the conceptual foundation of this approach whileobscuring its potential impact; (2) the Court’s use of American conflict oflaws jurisprudence to reinforce a deferential orientation in Canadianprivate international law; (3) the Court’s vision of the international orderand understanding of public international law, which has begun to affect theCanadian federal system; and (4) the model of the Canadian Constitutionemployed in these cases, which may have broad negative consequences forprovincial interests. The article argues that these flaws are remediable,that both constitutional text and recent opinions contain resources usefulto this end, and that, however the Court decides to address these problems,subsequent iterations of the Canadian approach to private international lawshould emphasize clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness., Sommaire Cet article trace l’évolution de l’approche canadienne au droitinternational privé à partir de Morguard Investments Ltd. c. De Savoye jusqu’à Castillo v. Castillo. Il cernequatre défauts majeurs qui ont des conséquences significatifs tant pour ledroit international privé que pour le fédéralisme canadien, dont: (1)l’emploi d’une terminologie ambiguë et contradictoire qui mine lesfondements conceptuels de cette approche tout en déguisant son impactpotentiel; (2) l’utilisation par la Cour de la jurisprudence américaine enmatière de droit international privé pour justifier une orientationdéférentielle en droit international privé canadien; (3) la vision de laCour de l’ordre international et sa compréhension du droit internationalpublic, qui ont des effets sur le système fédéral canadien; et (4) le modèlede la constitution canadienne révélée dans ces cas, qui pourrait avoir desérieux effets négatifs sur les intérêts provinciaux. L’article affirme queces défauts peuvent être rémédiés, que les textes constitutionnels et desopinions récentes révèlent des ressources utiles à cette fin, et que, peuimporte la façon dont la Cour s’y prend pour adresser ces problèmes,l’approche future du Canada au droit international privé doit avant toutêtre claire, uniforme et compréhensive.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Because of its structuring function, private international law tends to be given a status distinct from the ordinary rules of domestic law. In a federal system, private international law of necessity implicates some aspects of the constitution. In a series of cases beginning in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada has engaged in a striking reorientation of Canadian private international law, premised on a newly articulated relationship between private international law and the Canadian constitutional system. This constitutional dimension has been coupled with an enhanced notion of comity. The new dynamic has meant that changes in private international law that were initially prompted by constitutional considerations have gone further than the constitutional doctrines alone would demand. This paper traces these developments and uses them to show the challenges that the Supreme Court of Canada has faced since 1990 in constructing a relationship between Canada’s constitutional arrangements and its private international law. The court has fashioned the constitutional doctrines as drivers of Canadian private international law but its own recent jurisprudence shows difficulties in managing that relationship. The piece concludes with lessons to be learned from the experience of the last 25 years.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Basis for the jurisdiction to stay proceedings - comparison of Commonwealth countries - rationale for the jurisdiction to stay proceedings - relationship between jurisdiction and remedy.