Introduction

On April 29, 2025, the Superior Court of Quebec, through the Honorable Chief Justice, rendered a noteworthy decision in the case of Autorité des marchés financiers v. Agro Tech Ventures 1 inc.,[1] (“Agro Tech”), ordering the transfer of the case from the judicial district of Quebec to that of Montreal. This judgment stands out for recognizing a novel reason in support of such a request: the impact of the defendants’ prior choice of lawyers, within the context of related legal proceedings.

The defendants argued that the complexity of the case, the multiplicity of parties and their geographic distribution, as well as the procedural history, justified the change of district. They specifically emphasized that their lawyers, who were already involved in previous proceedings initiated by the plaintiff, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), in Montreal, were best suited to represent them without causing excessive costs and inconvenience.  The AMF opposed the request, arguing in part that the lawyers’ professional domicile was not a relevant criterion for a district transfer and that such a request should remain exceptional.

However, the Court sided with the defendants, concluding that they would suffer undue prejudice if the case remained in Quebec. In reaching this conclusion, the Court notably considered that the defendants’ choice of lawyers preceded the initiation of the current proceedings.

The Lawyers’ Professional Domicile as a Relevant Factor in Particular Circumstances

In principle, the territorially competent court is that of the defendant’s domicile.[2] However, Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the plaintiff to choose another judicial district in several matters. Thus, the transfer of a case from one competent judicial district to another remains an exceptional measure. Such a transfer can be ordered at any stage of the proceedings, provided it serves the interest of the parties, concerned third parties, or is based on serious grounds.[3]

In the Agro Tech case, the particular circumstances strongly favored a transfer to the Montreal district. The case involved 25 defendants and 407 compensated investors. None of the defendants resided in the Quebec district; most lived in Montreal, with some in neighboring districts like Longueuil, Laval, and Terrebonne. Among the investors, only about thirty out of 407 resided in Quebec City, with the vast majority residing in Montreal. Since the AMF claimed to be substituted in the rights of these investors, their involvement in the case was expected to be limited.

Furthermore, the alleged facts—including the contract conclusion, alleged faults, and claimed damages—mostly occurred in the Montreal area. The trial would require numerous hearing days, with participation from numerous witnesses and parties based in the Montréal area. Keeping the case in Quebec would therefore have resulted in significant travel and additional costs for all involved.

Finally, the defendants emphasized that previous proceedings initiated by the AMF against them had been filed in Montreal, and that they had retained the same lawyers as in those proceedings. These lawyers thus had a deep understanding of the facts and context of the dispute. The defendants argued that a change of judicial district in this related case, solely due to the plaintiff’s unilateral choice, would infringe on their right to freely choose their lawyer—especially in a complex case with multiple procedural ramifications.

In its reasoning, the Court accepted this last point, namely that prior related proceedings, predating the filing of the originating application and in which counsel had already been retained, constituted a relevant factor in assessing the balance of inconvenience.

Conclusion

The Agro Tech decision sets an interesting precedent in matters of judicial district transfer. It recognizes that in exceptional circumstances, a party’s prior choice of a lawyer—when justified by earlier related proceedings—can constitute a legitimate reason for transferring a case.

In this instance, the defendants had chosen their lawyers before the filing of the originating application. This choice was therefore not opportunistic, but rather a logical continuation of a dispute already underway in another judicial district. By accepting this argument, the Court innovates, opening the door to a more nuanced interpretation of the factors that may justify overriding territorial jurisdiction, based on the procedural and logistical realities of the parties.

[1] 2025 QCCS 1339

[2] Art 41 C.c.p.

[3] Art 48 C.c.p.