Canada: Private International Law – The Power Of A State Court To Grant Provisional Or Conservatory Measures, Where An Arbitrator Has Jurisdiction

Even where courts have no jurisdiction over the merits, courts, in some jurisdictions, will nonetheless have the power to grant provisional or conservatory measures such as, inter alia, interlocutory injunctions, Anton Pillar orders and seizures before judgment. In many cases, without these remedies, pursuing a lawsuit or claim could prove fruitless, irreparable damage is done, documents vanish, money and assets disappear.

In Quebec, a court however, has ruled that where the parties, by agreement, are bound by an arbitration clause, the courts did not have the power to issue an interlocutory injunction. The case is Jefagro Technologies inc. vs. Vetagro s.p.a. [2012] QCCS 2945.

The facts

An Italian company signed a 15 year licensing agreement with a Quebec company allowing the latter to make and distribute products over which the Italian company held certain intellectual property rights. Alleging that the Italian company had illegally cancelled the licensing agreement after only a few years, the Quebec company sued, in Quebec, the Italian company and one of the Quebec company's ex-employees, the latter bound by a non-competition and a non-solicitation clause in his employment contract.

The Quebec company sought an interlocutory injunction against the Italian company seeking an order for specific performance under the licensing agreement, and against the ex-employee (who went to work for the U.S. subsidiary of the Italian company) to stop violating the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in the employment contract. Since the licensing agreement contained an arbitration clause, the Italian company argued that the Quebec Superior Court had no jurisdiction over it. Furthermore that the court could not render an interlocutory injunction despite Article 3138 of the Quebec Civil Code, because of the arbitration clause.

The decision

The court did not apply Article 3138, sided with the Italian company, declined exercising the power to grant the interlocutory injunction and dismissed the lawsuit of the Quebec company.

Article 3138 of the Quebec Civil Code reads as follows:

"Art. 3138. A Québec authority may order provisional or conservatory measures even if it has no jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute."

Another article of the Quebec Civil Code – Article 3148 – provides as follows:

"Art. 3148. In personal actions of a patrimonial nature, a Québec authority has jurisdiction where

  1. the defendant has his domicile or his residence in Quebec;
  2. the defendant is a legal person, is not domiciled in Québec but has an establishment in Québec, and the dispute relates to its activities in Québec;
  3. a fault was committed in Québec, damage was suffered in Québec, an injurious act occurred in Québec or one of the obligations arising from a contract was to be performed in Québec;
  4. the parties have by agreement submitted to it all existing or future disputes between themselves arising out of a specified legal relationship;
  5. the defendant submits to its jurisdiction.

However, a Québec authority has no jurisdiction where the parties, by agreement, have chosen to submit all existing or future disputes between themselves relating to a specified legal relationship to a foreign authority or to an arbitrator, unless the defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the Québec authority."

The last paragraph of this article in essence says that where another forum has been chosen by the parties, the courts have no jurisdiction, in personal actions of a patrimonial nature.

Reading Article 3138 in conjunction with Article 3148, one would perhaps conclude that if the court has the power to put in place provisional or conservatory measures, "even if it has no jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute", it would still have that power where it has no jurisdiction because of the existence of an arbitration clause.

Are the two articles inconsistent? The judge, in deciding there was no inconsistency, did not break new ground, he simply followed a Supreme Court of Canada decision which said that Article 3148 prevailed over Article 3139 of the Quebec Civil Code. And since Article 3138 was similar to Article 3139, the judge applied the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the case of GreCon Dimter vs. J.R. Normand Inc. et al. [2005]2 SCR 401.

The facts were that a Quebec sawmill operator entered into a contract with a Quebec supplier of woodworking machinery for the purchase of equipment. In turn, the Quebec supplier ordered the equipment from the German company that manufactures the equipment in question. Delays occurred in the delivery by the German manufacturer, the operator sued the Quebec supplier who in turn made a third party or warranty claim against the German manufacturer. The contract between the supplier and the German manufacturer contained a choice of forum clause and a choice of law clause. The forum clause gave jurisdiction to the German courts and the choice of law clause stipulated that any dispute would be decided in accordance with German law.

The German manufacturer sought by application, the dismissal of the third party claim against it on the basis of the choice of forum clause. The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed the application stating that the unity of the actions provided in Article 3139 must prevail over the contractual choice of court provided for in Article 3148, para. 2. The Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal of the German manufacturer, ruling that it was the reverse, Article 3148, para. 2 prevailed over Article 3139.

Article 3139 of the Quebec Civil Code reads as follows:

"Art. 3139. Where a Québec authority has jurisdiction to rule on the principal demand, it also has jurisdiction to rule on an incidental demand or a cross demand."

The Court considered that the Quebec legislature by enacting Article 3148, para. 2 (quoted above), recognized the primacy of the autonomy of the parties in situations involving conflicts of jurisdiction, in order to foster foreseeability and certainty in international legal transactions; that it is the expression of a "legislative policy of respect for the autonomy of the parties." The Court stated that it should therefore be interpreted broadly.

The purpose of Article 3139, says the Court, is "primarily to ensure the efficient use of judicial resources, and the provision is the product of domestic procedural considerations". That since this provision is an exception to the principle that a court must determine its jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis, it should be interpreted narrowly. The Court determined that Article 3139 "confers a discretion for the judge" who can decide to sever the principal action from the incidental action and that its language indicates its permissive nature.

In essence, the Court said that the choice of forum made by the parties should be respected despite procedural provisions. It applied the principle of the primacy of the autonomy of the parties.

It is also interesting to note that the Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal, as well, on the application of Article 3135 of the Quebec Civil Code which codifies the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeal had applied it to reconcile Article 3148, para. 2 with Article 3139. But the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Article 3135 has "a suppletive function and is applicable only where the jurisdiction of the Quebec court has first been established". Which was not the case in that instance.


Based on this jurisprudence, the rule set out in Article 3138 that a Quebec court may order provisional or conservatory measures even where it otherwise would not have jurisdiction over the dispute, is valid law and applicable where the parties have not chosen a forum.

It is meant to provide quick remedies to prevent damage or preserve the status quo, while the case on the merits winds its way through a foreign court, where the rules of conflict of jurisdictions give no jurisdiction to the Quebec courts.

But should this goal set aside the will of the parties who have chosen another forum? According to the Supreme Court, no.

In the case before the Supreme Court, where the issue was whether or not the Quebec court would hear both the principal action and the third party claim, the consequences of separating them relate to cost and efficiency, since two courts instead of one will hear the parties' respective claims.

But ruling that where there is arbitration, no provisional or conservatory measures can be obtained, the consequences can be simply disastrous. Indeed, as mentioned above, not being able to apply to a Quebec Court for provisional or conservatory measures, a party to a dispute may suffer irreparable damages or be unable to enforce its judgment on the merits obtained from a court in a foreign jurisdiction, or an arbitrator.

Other countries


In France, Article 1449 of the Code of Civil Procedure partially deals with the issue. It reads as follows (simple translation):

As long as the arbitration tribunal is not yet constituted, the existence of an arbitration agreement does not prevent a party from applying to a state court in order to obtain instructions or a provisional or conservatory measure.

This provision was passed on January 13, 2011, as part of a reform of the French law on arbitration and codified established court precedent.

According to this text, the state courts only have the power to intervene in the context of an arbitration to make provisional or conservatory orders, before the arbitration tribunal is constituted.

It would therefore seem that the French state courts are excluded as soon as the arbitration tribunal is constituted.


With respect to Germany, the relevant provision is found in Article 1033 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows (simple translation):

An arbitration agreement does not prevent a court from ordering provisional or conservatory measures in respect of the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings before or during arbitration, if there is an application from one of the parties.

Under German law, therefore, the German state courts have the power to intervene before the constitution of the arbitration tribunal, as well as during arbitration, to make provisional or conservatory orders.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, arbitration is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996.

Article 44 of this statute provides that state courts have the power to intervene during arbitration and issue provisional or conservatory orders, such as Anton Pillar orders, the seizure of property, interlocutory injunctions, the nomination of receivers, etc.

The parties to the arbitration agreement however, have the right to exclude the powers of the state courts listed in Article 44. The English state courts therefore, do have the power to intervene at any stage of the arbitration process, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

The Act applies to any arbitration seated in the United Kingdom.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions