Droit judiciaire – Prof. Frédéric Bachand
Fundamental concepts......
A. Civil procedure: generalities......
i) Definition and basics: Civil procedure is above all interested in the dispute-resolution functions of tribunals in civil matters..
ii) Civil procedure in force in Canada......
B. Courts: Some fundamental principles......
i) The independence, impartiality and responsibility of judges......
ii) The openness and public nature of courts......
C. The “Crisis of Civil Justice” and Contemporary Reforms to Private Judicial Law......
D. Three Fundamental Themes......
1.The Right to Bring an Action......
A. Conditions for the existence of the right to bring an action......
i) Conditions that apply to all disputes: interest, quality, capacity, etc......
ii) A condition for litigation with an international element: The international “jurisdiction” of courts......
B. Limits on the Right to Bring an Action......
i) The Renunciation of the Right to Bring an Action......
ii) Jurisdictional immunities......
iii) Restrictions on the rights of a querulous litigant......
C. Expiry of the right to bring an action
i) Prescription......
ii) Le jugement ayant l’autorité de la chose jugée éteint-il le droit d’agir en justice?......
2. The jurisdiction of courts......
A. The division of jurisdiction according to the object of the litigation......
i) The subject-matter jurisdiction of courts......
ii) Quasi-judicial and inferior tribunals......
B. The division of jurisdiction according to territorial criteria (rationae personae)......
C. Overview of some questions related to the jurisdiction of courts......
i) Lis pendens (la litispendence)......
ii) Prescription......
3. The proceedings and their unfolding......
A. The parties to the proceedings......
i) Common mechanisms that can give rise to multi-party proceedings......
ii) The special case of class actions......
B. The pleadings (les principaux actes de procédure)......
i) The act introducing the proceedings......
ii) The defence......
iii) La signification ou notification des actes de procédure......
iv) L’amendement des actes de procédure......
C. Provisional or conservatory measures......
i) Nature and specifics of provisional or conservatory measures......
ii) Typology of provisional or conservatory measures......
D. Preliminary disclosure of information......
i) Disclosure of evidence......
ii) Access to other information surrounding the litigation......
E. The end of the proceedings......
i) Proceedings that end without a judgment on the merits......
ii) Proceedings that end by a judgment on the merits......
E. Costs......
Fundamental concepts......
A. Civil procedure: generalities......
i) Definition and basics: Civil procedure is above all interested in the dispute-resolution functions of tribunals in civil matters..
J.A. Jolowicz, On the Nature and Purpose of Civil Procedural Law” (1998) (CB1p332)......
a.Courts settle disputes (tranchent des différents) according to applicable law......
b.Courts oversee legality and help other dispute-resolution processes......
Jarrosson, Ch., “Les modes alternatifs de résolution de différends: présentation générale”......
c. Some courts now offer their own mediation services in order to encourage negotiated settlements......
ii) Civil procedure in force in Canada......
a. Constitutional aspects......
Lapierre c. Barrette [1988] Que. C.A. (CB1p161)......
b. The influence of the common law and civil law traditions on civil procedure in force in Canada......
Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée v.2858-0702 Québec Inc. (2001) SCC (CB1p166)......
Principes ALI/UNIDROIT – Introduction......
c. The growing influence of transnational sources on civil procedure in force in Canada......
GreCon Dimter v. JR Normandin [2005]......
B. Courts: Some fundamental principles......
i) The independence, impartiality and responsibility of judges......
Re Therrien (2001) SCC (CB1p208)......
Bande indienne Wewaykum c. Canada......
M. Cappelletti, “Who Watches the Watchmen? A Comparative Survey on Judicial Responsibility”......
J. Ziegel, “Disrobe This Process”......
J.A. Lanzinger, “A Personal Reflection on Judicial Elections”......
ii) The openness and public nature of courts......
Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (2002) SCC (CB1p190)......
Re Vancouver Sun......
K. Makin, “Lawyer Laments Rise in Publication Bans” (Globe & Mail, 2003)......
K. Roach, “Let the Light Shine In”......
C. The “Crisis of Civil Justice” and Contemporary Reforms to Private Judicial Law......
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice – Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales......
Comité de revision de la procedure civile, La Révision de la procédure civile – Une nouvelle culture judiciaire – Rapport du Comité de révision de la procédure civile, pp.10-43
McMurtry R.R., “We Are Not All Equal before Law the Law” (Globe & Mail, 2005)......
D. Three Fundamental Themes......
2. The Right to Bring an Action......
A. Conditions for the existence of the right to bring an action......
i) Conditions that apply to all disputes: interest, quality, capacity, etc......
Borowski v. Canada (A.G.) (1989) SCC (CB1p60)......
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal and Oil (1941) USSC (CB1p160)......
Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (A.G.) (1992) SCC (CB1p87)......
H.P. Glenn, “A propos de la maxime ‘nul ne plaide par procureur’” (1988) (CB1p311)......
DoucetBoudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3......
Assoc. des Propriétaires des Jardins Taché c. Entreprises Dasken Inc. (1974)......
ii) A condition for litigation with an international element: The international “jurisdiction” of courts......
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) USSC......
Muscutt v. Courcelles [2002] Ont C.A.......
Spar Aerospace v. American Mobile Satellite Corp. (2002) SCC (CB2p103)......
B. Limits on the Right to Bring an Action......
i) The Renunciation of the Right to Bring an Action......
a. In order to be heard by a foreign court......
M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972) USSC (CB1p136)......
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. c. Shute......
Z.I.Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V. (2003) SCC (CB1p232)......
GreCon Dimter Inc. c. J.R. Normand Inc. (2005)......
b. In order to be heard by an arbitral tribunal......
Éditions Chouette Inc. c. Desputeaux, (2001) QueCA, (2003) SCC (the “Caillou” case)......
Frédéric Bachand, “Éditions Chouette Inc. c. Desputeaux” (2003) (CB1p240)......
Bachand “L’efficacite en droit Quebecois d’une convention d’arbitrage ou d’election de for invoquee a l’encontre d’un appel en garantie”...
Dalimpex Ltd. v. Janicki (2003) OntCA (CB1p92)......
c. In order to have recourse to mediation/concilation......
Société polyclinique des fleurs c. Peyrin (2000) Cass.Civ.2e (CB1p65)......
ii) Jurisdictional immunities......
United States v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (1992) SCC (not in CB)......
Schreiber v. Canada (A.G.) (1992) SCC (CBp198)......
Clinton v. Jones (1997) USSC......
iii) Restrictions on the rights of a querulous litigant......
Yves-Marie Morissette,“Pathologie et thérapeutique du plaideur trop belliqueux”(2002)......
Productions Pixcom Inc. v. Fabrikant (2005)......
C. Expiry of the right to bring an action
i) Prescription......
ii) Le jugement ayant l’autorité de la chose jugée éteint-il le droit d’agir en justice?......
2. The jurisdiction of courts......
A. The division of jurisdiction according to the object of the litigation......
i) The subject-matter jurisdiction of courts......
a. Courts of first instance (primarily)......
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson (1995) SCC......
Ville de Montréal c. Tassé (1999) QueCA......
b. Courts that mainly hear appeals......
Secession Reference (2001) SCC......
Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) SCC......
Re Therrien (2001) SCC (CB1p208)......
Reference re Same Sex Marriage, [2004] SCC 79......
ii) Quasi-judicial and inferior tribunals......
B. The division of jurisdiction according to territorial criteria (rationae personae)......
Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. v. Azco Mining Inc. (2001) SCC (CB1p124)......
C. Overview of some questions related to the jurisdiction of courts......
i) Lis pendens (la litispendence)......
Rocois Construction, (1990) SCC......
ii) Prescription......
3. The proceedings and their unfolding......
A. The parties to the proceedings......
i) Common mechanisms that can give rise to multi-party proceedings......
a. The action brought against multiple defendants......
Jeff Berryman, “Injunctions – The ability to bind non-parties” (2002) (Additional)......
b. The action brought by multiple plaintiffs......
c. The joinder of distinct actions involving different parties......
d. The forced involvement of a third party in the proceedings......
Fonds d’assurance responsabilité professionnelle du Barreau du Québec c. Gariépy......
Eclipse Bescom Ltd. c. Soudures d’Auteuil Inc. (2002) QueCA (Additional)......
e. The voluntary involvement of a third party in the proceedings......
Alta Mura Construction Inc. C. Corporation d’hébergement du Québec......
ii) The special case of class actions......
Procedure......
Malhab c. Métromedia CMR Montréal et André Arthur (2003) QueCA......
H.P. Glenn, “A propos de la maxime ‘nul ne plaide par procureur’” (1988) (CB1p311) *ADDITIONAL......
Hollick v. Toronto (2001) SCC......
Pharmascience Inc. c. Option Consommateurs......
Michael Lewis, “Quebec class action law called unfair to defence” (2003)
and Jean-Maurice Bouchard, “Le Québec devient le paradis des recours collectifs
Landry c. Syndicat du transport de Montreal......
B. The pleadings (les principaux actes de procédure)......
i) The act introducing the proceedings......
a. The content of the act introducing the proceedings......
Beals c. Saldanha......
Edward H. Cooper, “Transnational Civil Procedure: Fact Pleading or Notice Pleading? A Viewpoint from the USA” (2001)......
b. Uniting several causes of action in a single introductory act......
ii) The defence......
iii) La signification ou notification des actes de procédure......
a. La signification/notification sur le territoire du for......
b. La signification/notification de l’acte introductif d’instance à l’étranger......
iv) L’amendement des actes de procédure......
C. Provisional or conservatory measures......
i) Nature and specifics of provisional or conservatory measures......
UNIDROIT Principles (P.8)......
ii) Typology of provisional or conservatory measures......
A) Measures designed to avoid irreparable harm to rights in dispute......
RJR-MacDonald v. Canada (1994) SCC......
Varnet UK v. Varnet Software (1994) QueCA......
Z.I. Pompey Industries c. ECU-Line (Some paragraphs)......
Raymond Chabot SST c. Groupe AST (2002) QueCA......
Celanese Canada Inc. c. Murray demolition Corp (2006)......
Theberge c. Galerie d’Art [2002] (para 76ff & 101ff) 2 S.C.R. 336......
Tri-Tex Co. c. Gideon (1999) (C.A.)......
L. Sarna “Aspects of the Law of Judicial Sequestration in Quebec” MLJ, 1977......
Clark Door of Canada Ltd. v. Inline Fiberglass Ltd. (1996)
Associates Capital Ltd. C. 1204662 Ontario Ltd. [2000]......
Toronto v. MFP Financial [2002]......
B) Measures designed to ensure the execution of a judgment on the merits......
UNIDROIT Principles (p.3.3)......
Opera on Original Site Inc. c. China Performing Art Agency (2005)......
Aetna Financial c. Feigelman [1985] 1 RCS 2......
D. Preliminary disclosure of information......
i) Disclosure of evidence......
ii) Access to other information surrounding the litigation......
A) Foundations of the discovery mechanisms for party access to other information in common law jurisdictions......
Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., “Discovery and the Role of the Judge in Civil Law Jurisdictions” (1998) (CB2p135)......
Hoffman “Access to Information, Access to Justice…”......
B) Typology of procedural mechanisms permitting access to other information surrounding the litigation......
E. The end of the proceedings......
i) Proceedings that end without a judgment on the merits......
a. The end of the proceedings brought about by one of the parties: discontinuance and acquiescence......
b. The end of the proceedings brought about by both of the parties: transaction......
c. The end of the proceedings brought about by the passage of time: la péremption de l’instance......
ii) Proceedings that end by a judgment on the merits......
a. Premature forms of judgments on the merits......
E. Costs......
1
Droit judiciaire – Prof. Frédéric Bachand
Fundamental concepts
A. Civil procedure: generalities
i) Definition and basics: Civil procedure is above all interested in the dispute-resolution functions of tribunals in civil matters
J.A. Jolowicz, On the Nature and Purpose of Civil Procedural Law” (1998) (CB1p332)
- Action (droit d’agir en justice) = The right to invoke the jurisdiction of the court; Not to be confused with cause of action (i.e., substantive right recognizing a favourable judgment).
- It is possible to deny the right to invoke the jurisdiction. The denial may be (a) absolute and general (non-justiciable question); or (b) absolute but particular (jurisdiction is possessed exclusively by a tribunal); or (c) conditional (if leave is required to initiate proceedings); or (d) conditional (if plaintiff must have an action).
PROCEDURAL VS. SUBSTANTIVE LAW
- Unlike with substantive law, subjection to procedural law is voluntary: it only affects those who choose to litigate. No one need be subjected to it against his will.
- It follows that, in the course of litigation, procedural law tends to present parties with a sequence of choices. If the party that has a choice disregards it, this will give the other party certain choices (dispositive principle). The court’s power of decision or order is exercised only on the application of a party (although once jurisdiction of court has been invoked, both parties are subordinate to it).
- Substantive law is self-executing, procedural law is not. Substantive law produces its results of its own force. Courts have the last word on questions of (procedural) law; in this sense, judges make law.
- Substantive law judges are just there to interpret. Procedural is more active.
- The voluntariness of civil procedure is a matter of tradition, not the nature of things. In some legal systems, once parties have invoked a court’s jurisdiction, the court can subordinate their interests to the public interest in resolving the legal issues.
PURPOSES
- It is true that one purpose of procedural law is “the fair, economical and expeditious adjudication, in accordance with law, of those disputes which the parties choose to submit to the courts.”
- However, judicial proceedings also have public purposes:
- They demonstrate the effectiveness of the law: Courts must encourage citizens to respect the law (without litigating) when it makes sense to do so. They must also make litigation accessible when it’s necessary. Courts must therefore strike a balance: litigation should not be too slow and costly or too fast and cheap.
- They interpret, clarify, develop and apply the law: This requires that courts be given sufficient time and resources to properly research legal issues. (Unfortunately, civil procedural law doesn’t often explicitly recognize this law-making role.)
Procedural law must maintain balance of incentives and disincentives of litigation. Citizens must understand what courts do and the messages that come from the courts. Parties make their choices based on the messages sent from the courts. Procedural law serves to interpret, clarify, develop and apply substantive law. Thus provides more than private interests of litigating parties.
a.Courts settle disputes (tranchent des différents) according to applicable law
- S’intéresse à la résolution des différends, par opposition aux droits substantiels. Processus de règlements pacifique (i.e. au lieu de recours au violence)
- «Matières civiles»
- Inclut matières commerciales, et toute matière privée
- Exclut donc: différends de droit public (impliquant une partie étatituqe ou que
des parties étatitques), par ex. différends de nature criminelleépénale, matières
administratives
- S’intéresse surtout aux fonctions qu’exercent les tribunaux judiciaires dans la résolution de différends civils
- usually, according to the law in force in that jurisdiction
- However, sometimes according to the law of another jurisdiction—choice of law
- see, for example, CCQ 3083-3133 (les tribunaux judiciaires, enl’occurrence les tribunaux judiciaires québécois, peuvent être appelés à trancher un différend présentant un ou plusieurs éléments d’extranéité – c’est-à-dire un différend qui n’est pas entièrement localisé dans l’ordre juridique local – en fonction de règles juridiques étrangères, des règles en vigueur dans un autre ordre juridique avec lequel le différend est, d’une façon ou d’une autre, rattaché)
- this is only in private law—would never happen in criminal law or administrative law
However Art. 12 of French NCPC also gives judges the power to settle disputes according to “amiable compositeur”
- This is not found in all civil law jurisdictions.
- This is a normal practice in consensual arbitration.
- Judge may include what he or she considers equitable in decision, all the while considering the rules that must be applied. This is only if parties agree to this. Judgment is final and obligatory. Should this be allowed in Canada?
- advantages:
- voluntariness principle
- preserving business relationship
- considering the context, all of the factors
- disadvantages:
- Arbitration exists for this purpose. The state has less of an interest in dedicating resources to purely private dispute resolution according to non-statal equality. Arbitrage = Mode de procésus privé extra-judiciaire par lequel les parties en litige vont, par contrat, donner à un tiers le pouvoir de se rendre à une décision obligatoire.
- uncertainty; parties not comfortable with giving judges this much discretion
- you don’t get to pick your judge (unlike in arbitration)
CPC 944.10 provides a suppletive rule that arbitrators cannot act as amiables compositeurs except with the prior consent of the parties.
b.Courts oversee legality and help other dispute-resolution processes
- ... dont certains sont non juridictionnels: négociation directe ou assistée (médiation) → Transaction (i.e., accord à l’amiable, règlement hors-cours; parallel to ‘settlement agreement’ in CML).
- ... alors que d’autres sont juridictionnels (tribunaux quasi judiciaires, arbitrage conventionnel) → Décision finale et obligatoire rendue par un tiers.
- NB: The point is that even when parties should have juridical recourse, it is not
always guaranteed that they end up in front of judges.
Jarrosson, Ch., “Les modes alternatifs de résolution de différends: présentation générale”
BIRTH OR RENEWAL OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION
- Started in Common law jurisdictions, from dissatisfaction of law and juridical solutions.
- Wish to separate from procedural and substantive law
- NB: Alternative methods are not non-legal methods.
- Still not entirely accepted. General weariness of alternative modes of resolution
- Jurists need to learn the new techniques of negotiation borrowed from psychologists and sociologists in order to be more flexible, fast, economic, efficient, and to allow the practice to progress.
NAMES AND TYPES
- Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR (règlement alternative des différends, resolution amiable des différends RAD); MARC (modes alternatifs de règlements des conflits; SoRRèl (solutions de rechange au règlement des litiges
Note that the word alternatif in French is just a literal translation.
- Arbitration is a non-pacific type whereby terms and solution are imposed on parties. It is a loi de substitution and has become an classical alternative method.
- Other forms include amiable composition and ombudsman (mediation).
- ADRs form an open category that is not defined or delimited by rules. Generally pacific (except arbitration). Solution is only obligatory if parties agree that it is.
TYPOLOGY
- Core of all ADR = Mediation
- Conciliation vs. Mediation:
- Both are pacific
- Mediation is active because it proposes solutions
- Conciliation does not require a third party
- Conciliation is an ends while mediation is a means
- All forms of ADR can be (a) contractual (amiable, conventional) or under the control of a judge
- Expertise serves as the basis of negotiation of the two parties; ends in transaction.
- Other forms (all based on mediation) include the mini-trial = Three people presided by a neutral council are named by the parties and attempt to find a solution that works for both parties. The med-arb requires that the third party acts as mediator, then if this fails he becomes arbitrator. The co-med-arb is the same concept, but two different people act as mediator and arbitrator. Baseball arbitration (LOA last offer arbitration) requires each party to propose a solution and the third party must choose the best solution. The Medaloa follows LOA then uses the conclusion as basis for mediation.
REGULATIONS
- Starting MARC can be from the law (judicial authority) or from conventional methods (contracts)
- Functioning of MARC: Judicial ones follow rules of law or judges; Contractual ones follow wishes of parties from contract.
- Obligation of parties: (1) Obligation of results: Parties must discuss with one another. (2) Obligation of means: Parties must act in good faith and ensure confidentiality.
- Obligation of third party: (1) Confidentiality; (2) No re-intervention if first attempt fails; (3) Independence, impartiality, neutrality, objectivity, equity, justice
- Effects of MARC: Will not always be the same, but greater goal is to avoid that a party is penalized for having chosen alternative method.
- In case of success: No formalism is required. Success is found if parties agree on a solution and end dispute. Usually there is a signed document, transaction, but this is not always the case.
- In case of failure: Parties must resort to proceedings. To counter this, there have been attempts for multiple level ADR (e.g., Med-arb) but there have been many problems with these methods.
Other dispute-resolution processes: