Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp. et al.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Citation: (2002), 297 N.R. 83 (SCC),2002 SCC 78
• Date: 11 June 2002

Spar Aerospace v. Am. Mobile Satellite (2002), 297 N.R. 83 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. DE.008

Hughes Communications Inc. (appellant) v. Spar Aerospace Limited (respondent)

Viacom Inc. (formerly "Westinghouse Electric Corporation") (appellant) v. Spar Aerospace Limited (respondent)

Motient Corporation (formerly "American Mobile Satellite Corporation") (appellant) v. Spar Aerospace Limited (respondent)

Adaptative Broadband Corporation (formerly "Satellite Transmissions Systems Inc.") (appellant) v. Spar Aerospace Limited (respondent)

(28070; 2002 SCC 78; 2002 CSC 78)

Indexed As: Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

June 11, 2002.

Summary:

A satellite was damaged in outer space as a result of improper commands radioed from Earth locations outside Quebec. The subcon­tractor who built and installed the communi­cations payload, whose head office was in Ontario, but whose plant was in Quebec, sued in Quebec for damages. The subcon­tractor claimed damages for loss of perform­ance incentives, loss of future profits caused by loss of reputation and for expenses incurred in investigating the damage to the satellite. The American defendants moved for a declinatory exception, alleging that the Quebec courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the action. Two defendants moved to dismiss the action on the basis of the doc­trine of forum non conveniens.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported J.E. 99-2060, dismissed the motions. The defendants appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2000] R.J.Q. 1405, dismissed the appeal. The defendants appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 9001

Conflict of laws - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated: "As the basic rules of private international law are codified in Quebec, courts must interpret those rules by first examining the specific wording of the provisions of the [Civil Code of Qué­bec] and then inquiring whether or not their interpretation is consistent with the principles which underlie the rules. Given that the provisions of the C.C.Q. and of the [Code of Civil Procedure] do not refer directly to the principles of comity, order and fairness, and that the principles are at best, vaguely defined, it is important to emphasize that these principles are not binding rules in themselves. Instead, they inspire the interpretation of the various private international law rules and rein­force the interconnected nature of the issues" - See paragraphs 14 to 23.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 9040

Conflict of laws - International jurisdiction of Quebec authorities - Personal actions of a patrimonial nature - Under art. 3148(3) of the Civil Code of Québec, Quebec courts had jurisdiction where, inter alia, damage was suffered in Quebec - In the present case, a satellite was damaged in outer space as a result of improper com­mands radioed from Earth locations outside Quebec - The subcontractor who built and installed the communications payload, whose head office was in Ontario, but whose plant was in Quebec, sued in Que­bec for damages - The subcontractor claimed damages for loss of performance incentives, loss of future profits caused by loss of reputation and for expenses incurred in investigating the damage to the satellite - A judge seized with a motion for a declinatory exception, held that the sub­contractor made a prima facie case that it suffered damage in Quebec, and hence, Quebec courts could assert jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision, holding that the amount of dam­ages claimed was not a concern for the jurisdiction question - See paragraphs 9, 26 to 37.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 9040

Conflict of laws - International jurisdiction of Quebec authorities - Personal actions of a patrimonial nature - Under art. 3148(3) of the Civil Code of Québec, Quebec courts had jurisdiction where: (1) a fault was committed in Quebec; (2) damage was suffered in Quebec; (3) an injurious act occurred in Quebec; or (4) one of the obligations arising from a contract was to be performed in Quebec - The Supreme Court of Canada held that to interpret "injurious Act" in a manner that reflected the development of the rule and would not render redundant the three other grounds set out in art. 3148(3), it had to refer to a damage-causing event that attracted no-fault liability - See paragraphs 38 to 43.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 9041

Conflict of laws - International jurisdiction of Quebec authorities - Real and substan­tial connection - Under art. 3148(3) in Book Ten of the Civil Code of Québec, Quebec courts had jurisdiction where: (1) a fault was committed in Quebec; (2) damage was suffered in Quebec; (3) an injurious act occurred in Quebec; or (4) one of the obligations arising from a con­tract was to be performed in Quebec - The Supreme Court of Canada, in a case invol­ving a Quebec plaintiff and American defendants, rejected an argument that the constitutional "real and substantial connec­tion" criterion found in its Morguard and Hunt decisions was required in addition to the jurisdiction provisions of Book Ten - That criterion was specially crafted to address the challenges posed by multiple jurisdictions within a federation - Also, it was arguable that the "real and substantial connection" was already subsumed under art. 3148(3) - In addition, it seemed that the "real and substantial connection" was captured in other provisions of Book Ten, such as the forum non conveniens doctrine codified at art. 3135, to safeguard against the improper assumption of jurisdiction - See paragraphs 44 to 64.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 9042

Conflict of laws - International jurisdiction of Quebec authorities - Forum non conveniens - A satellite was damaged in outer space as a result of improper com­mands radioed from Earth locations outside Quebec - The subcontractor who built and installed the communications payload, whose head office was in Ontario, but whose plant was in Quebec, sued in Que­bec for damages - The subcontractor claimed damages for loss of performance incentives, loss of future profits caused by loss of reputation and for expenses incurred in investigating the damages to the satellite - Two American defendants moved to dismiss the action on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, codified at art. 3135 of the Civil Code of Québec - A motions judge, who had ruled that Quebec courts had jurisdiction on the basis of damage suffered in Quebec (art. 3148(3) C.C.Q.), ruled that no other juris­diction was clearly more appropriate than Quebec and that no exceptional exercise of the power to decline jurisdiction under art. 3135 was warranted - The Supreme Court of Canada declined to interfere with the decision - See paragraphs 65 to 82.

Cases Noticed:

Hilton v. Guyot (1895), 159 U.S. 113, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. Spencer, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 278; 62 N.R. 81; 11 O.A.C. 207, refd to. [para. 19].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 812, consd. [para. 19].

Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Contain­erline N.V. (Bankrupt) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 907; 280 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, consd. [para. 20].

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 20].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 21].

Air Canada et autres c. McDonnell Douglas Corp. et Deutsch Co. (The), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1554; 98 N.R. 1; 24 Q.A.C. 216, refd to. [para. 31].

Rosdev Investments Inc. v. Allstate Insur­ance Co. of Canada, [1994] R.J.Q. 2966 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

Moysa v. Labour Relations Board (Alta.), Alberta Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 and Hudson Bay Co., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1572; 96 N.R. 70; 97 A.R. 368, consd. [para. 44].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Quebecor Printing Memphis Inc. v. Rege­nair Inc., [2001] R.J.Q 966 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Moran et al. v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122, consd. [para. 52].

Antwerp Bulkcarriers, N.V., Re (2001), 279 N.R. 154 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 54].

M.N.C. Multinational Consultants Inc./Consultants Multinational inc. v. Dover Corp., J.E. 98-1179 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

Gestion M.P.F. inc. v. 9024-3247 Québec inc., J.E. 97-1706 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

Transport McGill ltée v. N.T.S. inc., J.E. 96-166 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 58].

Bitton v. Margo Movers International Inc., [1996] R.D.J. 14 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd., [1987] 1 A.C. 460, refd to. [para. 70].

Lexus Maritime inc. v. Oppenheim Forfait G.M.B.H., [1998] Q.J. No. 2059 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Matrox Graphics Inc. v. Ingram Micro Inc., J.E. 2002-688 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 76].

Consortium de la nutrition ltée v. Aliments Parmalat inc., [2001] Q.J. No. 104 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 76].

Encaissement de chèque Montréal ltée v. Softwise inc., [1999] Q.J. No. 200 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 77].

SNI Aérospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak, [1987] 2 All E.R. 510 (P.C.), consd. [para. 77].

Lamborghini (Canada) Inc. v. Automobili Lamborghini S.P.A., [1997] R.J.Q. 58 (C.A.), consd. [para. 78].

Barré v. J.J. MacKay Canada ltée, J.E. 99-27 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

Lévy (Sam) & Associés Inc. v. Azco Min­ing Inc., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 978; 280 N.R. 155, consd. [para. 80].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 3135, art. 3148 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Castel, Jean-Gabriel, and Janet Walker, Canadian Conflict of Laws (5th Ed. 2002), loose-leaf updated August 2002, Issue 2, pp. 1.13 to 1.14 [para. 16].

Castel, Jean-Gabriel, Droit international privé québécois (1980), p. 15 [para. 15].

Cheshire, Geoffrey C., and North, Peter, Private International Law (13th Ed. 1999), pp. 5 [para. 16]; 330 to 331 [para. 61].

Davies, D. J. Llewelyn, The Influence of Huber's De Conflictu Legum on English Private International Law in Williams, J.F. and McNair, A.D., eds., The British Year Book of International Law, vol. 18 (1937), p. 49 [para. 15].

Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws, (13th Ed. 2000) vol. 1, pp. 5 [para. 16]; 6 [para. 17].

Emanuelli, Claude, Droit international privé québécois, 2001, pp. 20 to 22 [para. 15]; 91 [para. 58].

Glenn, H. Patrick, Droit international pri­vé, dans La réforme du Code civil, vol. 3, Priorités et hypothèques, preuve et prescription, publicité des droits, droit international privé, dispositions transitoi­res, 1993, p. 754 [para. 42].

Goldstein, Gérald, et Groffier, Ethel, Droit international privé, t. 1, Théorie générale, 1998, pp. 20 [para. 15]; 359 [para. 59].

Groffier, Ethel, La réforme du droit inter­national privé québécois : supplément au Précis de droit international privé québé­cois, 1993, p. 130 [para. 69].

Morris, J. H. C., The Conflict of Laws, (5th Ed. 2000), p. 535 [para. 18].

Reid, Hubert, Dictionnaire de droit québé­cois et canadien avec table des abrévia­tions et lexique anglais-français, 2e éd., 2001, p. 333 [para. 62].

Scoles, Eugene F., et al., Conflict of Laws (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 14 to 15, 18 to 19 [para. 15].

Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Con­flict of Laws, Foreign and Domestic, in Regard to Contracts, Rights, and Rem­edies, and Especially in Regard to Mar­riages, Divorces, Wills, Successions, and Judgments (1834), c. 11, p. 35 [para. 15].

Talpis, Jeffrey A., and J.-G. Castel, Inter­preting the rules of private international law, in Reform of the Civil Code, vol. 5B, Private International Law (1993), pp. 5 [para. 22]; 55 [para. 79].

Talpis, Jeffrey A., and Kath, Shelley L., "If I am from Grand-Mère, Why Am I Being Sued in Texas?", Responding to Inappropriate Foreign Jurisdiction in Quebec-United States Crossborder Litiga­tion (2001), pp. 22, 43 to 69 [para. 23].

Talpis, Jeffrey A., and Kath, Shelley L., The Exceptional as Commonplace in Quebec Forum Non Conveniens Law: Cambior, a Case in Point (2000), 34 R.J.T. 761, generally [para. 81].

Tetley, William, Current Developments in Canadian Private International Law (1999), 78 Can. Bar Rev. 152, p. 155 [para. 21].

Yntema, Hessel E., The Comity Doctrine (1966-67), 65 Mich. L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 15].

Counsel:

Colin K. Irving and Catherine McKenzie, for the appellant Hughes Communica­tions Inc.;

Joshua C. Borenstein, for the appellant Viacom Inc.;

James A. Woods and Christian Immer, for the appellant Motient Corporation;

Jean Bélanger and Louis Charette, for the appellant Adaptative Broadband Corpor­ation;

Marc-André Blanchard, for the respondent Spar Aerospace Limited.

Solicitors of Record:

Irving, Mitchell & Associates, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant Hughes Com­munications Inc.;

Spiegel Sohmer, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant Viacom Inc.;

Woods & Partners, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant Motient Corporation;

Lavery, de Billy, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant Adaptative Broadband Corporation;

Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent Spar Aero­space Limited.

This appeal was heard on June 11, 2002, by Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered from the Bench on June 11, 2002, by LeBel, J., with reasons in both official languages delivered on December 6, 2002.