Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2007-07-13
Neutral citation
2007 SCC 34
Report
[2007] 2 SCR 801
Case number
31067
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Arbitration
Contract
International law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 31067
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801, 2007 SCC 34
Date: 20070713
Docket: 31067
Between:
Dell Computer Corporation
Appellant
and
Union des consommateurs and Olivier Dumoulin
Respondents
‑ and ‑
Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, Public
Interest Advocacy Centre, ADR Chambers Inc., ADR Institute
of Canada, Inc., and London Court of International Arbitration
Interveners
Official English Translation: Reasons of Deschamps J.
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 121)
Joint Dissenting Reasons:
(paras. 122 to 242)
Deschamps J. (McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)
Bastarache and LeBel JJ. (Fish J. concurring)
______________________________
Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801, 2007 SCC 34
Dell Computer Corporation Appellant
v.
Union des consommateurs and Olivier Dumoulin Respondents
and
Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, Public
Interest Advocacy Centre, ADR Chambers Inc., ADR Institute
of Canada and London Court of International Arbitration Interveners
Indexed as: Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs
Neutral citation: 2007 SCC 34.
File No.: 31067.
2006: December 13; 2007: July 13.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Private international law — Jurisdiction of Quebec courts — Arbitration — Sale of computer equipment over Internet — Arbitration clause contained in terms and conditions of sale — Consumer instituting class action against seller — Article of book of Civil Code on private international law providing that Quebec authority has jurisdiction to hear action involving consumer contract if consumer has domicile or residence in Quebec, and that waiver of that jurisdiction by consumer may not be set up against consumer — Whether arbitration clause can be set up against consumer — Whether arbitration clause contains foreign element that renders rules on international jurisdiction of Quebec authorities applicable — Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 3149.
Arbitration — Review of application to refer dispute to arbitration — Whether arbitrator or court has jurisdiction to rule first on parties’ arguments on validity or applicability of arbitration clause — Limits of intervention by court in case involving arbitration clause — Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C‑25, arts. 940.1, 943.
Contracts — Consumer contract or contract of adhesion — External clause — Electronic commerce — Validity of arbitration clause — Whether arbitration clause that can be accessed by means of hyperlink in contract entered into via Internet is external clause — Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1435.
The Dell company sells computer equipment retail over the Internet. It has its Canadian head office in Toronto and a place of business in Montreal. On April 4, 2003, the order pages on its English‑language Web site indicated prices of $89 rather than $379 and of $118 rather than $549 for two models of handheld computers. On April 5, on being informed of the errors, Dell blocked access to the erroneous order pages through the usual address. D, circumventing the measures taken by Dell by using a deep link that enabled him to access the order pages without following the usual route, ordered a computer at the lower price indicated there. Dell then posted a price correction notice and at the same time announced that it would not process orders for computers at the prices of $89 and $118. When Dell refused to honour D’s order at the lower price, the Union des consommateurs and D filed a motion for authorization to institute a class action against Dell. Dell applied for referral of D’s claim to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in the terms and conditions of sale, and dismissal of the motion for authorization to institute a class action. The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal held, for different reasons, that the arbitration clause could not be set up against D.
Held (Bastarache, LeBel and Fish JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. D’s claim should be referred to arbitration and the motion for authorization to institute a class action should be dismissed.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.: To ensure the internal consistency of the Civil Code of Québec, it is necessary to adopt a contextual interpretation that limits the scope of the provisions of the title on the international jurisdiction of Quebec authorities to situations with a relevant foreign element. Since the prohibition in art. 3149 C.C.Q. against waiving the jurisdiction of Quebec authorities is found in that title, it applies only to situations with such an element. The foreign element must be a point of contact that is legally relevant to a foreign country, which means that the contact must be sufficient to play a role in determining whether a court has jurisdiction. An arbitration clause is not in itself a foreign element warranting the application of the rules of Quebec private international law. The neutrality of arbitration as an institution is one of the fundamental characteristics of this alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Unlike the foreign element, which suggests a possible connection with a foreign state, arbitration is an institution without a forum and without a geographic basis. The parties to an arbitration agreement are free, subject to any mandatory provisions by which they are bound, to choose any place, form and procedures they consider appropriate. The choice of procedure does not alter the institution of arbitration. The rules become those of the parties, regardless of where they are taken from. As a result, an arbitration that contains no foreign element in the true sense of the word is a domestic arbitration. In the instant case, the facts that the applicable rules of the American arbitration organization provide that arbitrations will be governed by a U.S. statute and that English will be the language used in the proceedings are not relevant foreign elements for purposes of the application of Quebec private international law. [3] [26] [50‑53] [56‑58]
In a case involving an arbitration agreement, any challenge to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction must be resolved first by the arbitrator in accordance with the competence‑competence principle, which has been incorporated into art. 943 C.C.P. A court should depart from the rule of systematic referral to arbitration only if the challenge to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction is based solely on a question of law. This exception, which is authorized by art. 940.1 C.C.P., is justified by the courts’ expertise in resolving such questions, by the fact that the court is the forum to which the parties apply first when requesting referral and by the rule that an arbitrator’s decision regarding his or her jurisdiction can be reviewed by a court. If the challenge requires the production and review of factual evidence, the court should normally refer the case to arbitration, as arbitrators have, for this purpose, the same resources and expertise as courts. Where questions of mixed law and fact are concerned, the court must refer the case to arbitration unless the questions of fact require only superficial consideration of the documentary evidence in the record. Before departing from the general rule of referral, the court must be satisfied that the challenge to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction is not a delaying tactic and that it will not unduly impair the conduct of the arbitration proceeding. In the case at bar, the parties have raised questions of law relating to the application of the provisions on Quebec private international law and to whether the class action is of public order. There are a number of other arguments, however, that require an analysis of the facts in order to apply the law to this case, such as those relating to the existence of a foreign element and to the external nature of the arbitration clause. Consequently, the matter should have been referred to arbitration. [84‑88]
The arbitration clause in issue, which could be accessed by means of a hyperlink in a contract entered into via the Internet, is not an external one within the meaning of art. 1435 C.C.Q. and is valid. Analogously to paper documents, some Web documents contain several pages that can be accessed only by means of hyperlinks, whereas others can be viewed by scrolling down them on the computer’s screen. The traditional test of physical separation, which is applied to determine whether contractual stipulations in paper documents are external, cannot be transposed without qualification to the context of electronic commerce. To determine whether clauses on the Internet are external clauses, therefore, it is necessary to consider another rule that is implied by art. 1435 C.C.Q.: the precondition of accessibility. This precondition is a useful tool for the analysis of an electronic document. Thus, a clause that requires operations of such complexity that its text is not reasonably accessible cannot be regarded as an integral part of the contract. Likewise, a clause contained in a document on the Internet to which a contract on the Internet refers, but for which no hyperlink is provided, will be an external clause. It is clear from the interpretation of art. 1435 C.C.Q. and from the principle of functional equivalence that underlies the Act to establish a legal framework for information technology that access to the clause in electronic format must be no more difficult than access to its equivalent on paper. In the instant case, the evidence shows that the consumer could access the page of Dell’s Web site containing the arbitration clause directly by clicking on the highlighted hyperlink entitled “Terms and Conditions of Sale”. This link reappeared on every page the consumer accessed. When the consumer clicked on the link, a page containing the terms and conditions of sale, including the arbitration clause, appeared on the screen. From this point of view, the clause was no more difficult for the consumer to access than would have been the case had he or she been given a paper copy of the entire contract on which the terms and conditions of sale appeared on the back of the first page. [94] [96‑97] [99‑101]
Although the class action is of public interest, it is a procedure, and its purpose is not to create a new right. The mere fact that D decided to bring the matter before the courts by means of a class action rather than an individual action does not affect the admissibility of his action. An argument based on the class action being of public order cannot therefore be advanced to prevent the court hearing the action from referring the parties to arbitration. [105‑106] [108]
Since the facts triggering the application of the arbitration clause occurred before the coming into force of s. 11.1 of the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits any stipulation that obliges a consumer to refer a dispute to arbitration, that provision does not apply to the facts of this case. [111] [120]
Per Bastarache, LeBel and Fish JJ. (dissenting): One should not attach any significance to the structure of the Civil Code of Québec or the Code of Civil Procedure when interpreting the substantive provisions under review here. The coherence of the regime is not dependent on the particular Book of the C.C.P. that deals with arbitrations, or the particular title and Book of the C.C.Q. containing art. 3149. The C.C.Q. itself constitutes an ensemble which is not meant to be parcelled out into chapters and sections that are not interrelated. [141]
Quebec’s acceptance of jurisdiction clauses is rooted in the principle of primacy of the autonomy of the parties. Both art. 3148, para. 2 C.C.Q. and art. 940.1 C.P.C. can be interpreted as giving practical effect to that principle and are consistent with the international movement towards harmonizing the rules of jurisdiction. On that point, art. 940.1 C.C.P. seems clear: if the parties have an agreement to arbitrate on the matter of the dispute, on the application of either of the parties, the court “shall” refer the parties to arbitration, unless the case has been inscribed on the roll or the court finds the agreement to be null. The reference to the nullity of the agreement is clearly also meant to cover the situation where the arbitration agreement, without being null, cannot be set up against the applicant. By using the term “shall”, the legislator has indicated that the court has no discretion to refuse, on the application of either of the parties, to refer the case to arbitration when the appropriate conditions are met. [142] [144] [149]
The courts below were correct to fully consider D’s challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement based on the application of art. 3149 C.C.Q. Although art. 940.1 C.C.P. is not clear regarding the extent of the analysis the court should undertake, a discretionary approach favouring resort to the arbitrator in most instances would best serve the legislator’s clear intention to promote the arbitral process and its efficiency, while preserving the core supervisory jurisdiction of the Superior Court. When seized with a declinatory exception, a court should rule on the validity of the arbitration agreement only if it is possible to do so on the basis of documents and pleadings filed by the parties without having to hear evidence or make findings about its relevance and reliability. That said, courts may still exercise some discretion when faced with a challenge to the validity of an arbitration agreement regarding the extent of the review they choose to undertake. In some circumstances, particularly in those that truly merit the label “international commercial arbitration”, it may be more efficient to submit all questions regarding jurisdiction for the arbitrator to hear at first instance. In other circumstances, such as in the present case where provisions of the C.C.Q. must be interpreted, it would seem preferable for the court to fully entertain the challenge to the arbitration agreement’s validity. [176] [178]
The arbitration agreement at issue here cannot be set up against D because it constitutes a waiver of the jurisdiction of the Quebec authorities under art. 3149 C.C.Q. In determining whether art. 3149 applies, it is necessary to ask whether the jurisdiction chosen in the contract through a forum selection or arbitration clause is a “Québec authority”. If that jurisdiction is not a “Québec authority”, art. 3149 comes into play to permit the consumer or worker to bring his or her dispute before a “Québec authority”. An arbitration clause is itself sufficient to trigger the application of art. 3148, para. 2, and hence the exceptions that apply to it, including art. 3149. Forum selection and arbitration clauses constitute on their own the requisite foreign element for these rules of private international law to be engaged. A contractual arbitrator cannot be a “Québec authority” for the purposes of art. 3149. A “Québec authority” must mean a decision‑maker situated in Quebec holding its authority from Quebec law. No arbitrator who is bound by U.S. law could be a “Québec authority”. Moreover, one would think a “Québec authority” would be required to provide arbitration services in French, whereas here, the American arbitration body’s code of procedure provides that all arbitrations will be in English. Finally, it seems completely incongruous that in order to begin the process attributing to the purported “Québec authority” power to hear the dispute, the consumer must first contact an American institution, located in the U.S., that is in charge of organizing the arbitration. [152] [184] [200] [204] [212‑216]
The argument that a consumer dispute could never be arbitrated because it would constitute an arbitration over matter of public order must be rejected. Article 2639 C.C.Q. deals with the kind of disputes that cannot be submitted to arbitration, namely “[d]isputes over the status and capacity of persons, family matters or other matters of public order”. A consumer dispute does not constitute another matter of public order. Furthermore, the fact that certain Consumer Protection Act rules to be applied by the arbitrator are in the nature of public order does not constitute a bar for the hearing of the case by an arbitral tribunal. Finally, the fact that the Consumer Protection Act and the C.C.Q. are silent as to the arbitrability of a consumer dispute suggests its permissibility. An act should only be interpreted as excluding the possibility of arbitration if it is clear from it that this is what the legislator intended. No provisions of the Consumer Protection Act or the C.C.Q. indicate that this is the case for consumer disputes. [218‑221]
The argument that the principle of the autonomy of the parties has no bearing on this case as the arbitration clause is found in a contract of adhesion must also fail as it is based on the false assumption that an adhering party does not truly consent to be bound by the obligations contained in a contract of adhesion. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the respondents to raise the fact that the arbitration clause is found in a contract of adhesion in order to demonstrate that D should not be bound by it. Moreover, an arbitration clause cannot be said to be abusive, and therefore void, only because it is found in a consumer contract or in a contract of adhesion. [227‑229]
The arbitration agreement is not null on the ground that it is found in an external clause that was not expressly brought to the attention of D as required under art. 1435 C.C.Q. While the hyperlink to the Terms and Conditions of Sale was in smaller print, located at the bottom of the Configurator Page, this is consistent with industry standards. It can therefore be concluded that the hyperlink was evident to D. Furthermore, the Configurator Page contained a notice that the sale was subject to the Terms and Conditions of Sale, available by hyperlink, thus bringing the Terms and Conditions expressly to D’s attention. [152] [238]
The recent amendment to the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to this case as the arbitration agreement was concluded before the new provision came into force and the general presumption against retroactivity has not been rebutted. [162]
Cases Cited
By Deschamps J.
Followed: Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666, 2006 SCC 19; referred to: Dominion Bridge Corp. v. Knai, [1998] R.J.Q. 321; Desputeaux v. Éditions Chouette (1987) inc., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 178, 2003 SCC 17; Quebecor Printing Memphis Inc. v. Regenair Inc., [2001] R.J.Q. 966; Condominiums Mont St‑Sauveur inc. v. Constructions Serge Sauvé ltée, [1990] R.J.Q. 2783; GreCon Dimter inc. v. J.R. Normand inc., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 401, 2005 SCC 46; Laurentienne‑vie, compagnie d’assurance inc. v. Empire, compagnie d’assurance‑vie, [2000] R.J.Q. 1708; Fondation M. v. Banque X., BGE 122 III 139 (1996); C.C.I.C. Consultech International v. Silverman, [1991] R.D.J. 500; Banque Nationale du Canada v. Premdev inc., [1997] Q.J.
No. 689 (QL); Acier Leroux inc. v. Tremblay, [2004] R.J.Q. 839; Robertson Building Systems Ltd. v. Constructions de la Source inc., [2006] Q.J. No. 3118 (QL), 2006 QCCA 461; Compagnie nationale algérienne de navigation v. Pegasus Lines Ltd. S.A., [1994] Q.J. No. 329 (QL); Kingsway Financial Services Inc. v. 118997 Canada inc., [1999] Q.J. No. 5922 (QL); Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. v. Arochem International Ltd. (1992), 66 B.C.L.R. (2d) 113; Dalimpex Ltd. v. Janicki (2003), 228 D.L.R. (4th) 179; Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712.
By Bastarache and LeBel JJ. (dissenting)
Dominion Bridge Corp. v. Knai, [1998] R.J.Q. 321; Zodiak International Productions Inc. v. Polish People’s Republic, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 529; Masson v. Thompson, [1994] R.J.Q. 1032; Syndicat de Normandin Lumber Ltd. v. The “Angelic Power”, [1971] F.C. 263; Desputeaux v. Éditions Chouette (1987) inc., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 178, 2003 SCC 17; GreCon Dimter inc. v. J.R. Normand inc., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 401, 2005 SCC 46; La Sarre (Ville de) v. Gabriel Aubé inc., [1992] R.D.J. 273; Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666, 2006 SCC 19; Royal Bank of Canada v. Concrete Column Clamps (1961) Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 1038; In re Athlumney, [1898] 2 Q.B. 547; Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; Kingsway Financial Services Inc. v. 118997 Canada inc., [1999] Q.J. No. 5922 (QL); World LLC v. Parenteau & Parenteau Int’l Inc., [1998] Q.J. No. 736 (QL); Automobiles Duclos inc. v. Ford du Canada ltée, [2001] R.J.Q. 173; Simbol Test Systems Inc. v. Gnubi Communications Inc., [2002] Q.J. No. 437 (QL); Sonox Sia v. Albury Grain Sales Inc., [2005] Q.J. No. 9998 (QL); Martineau v. Verreault, [2001] Q.J. No. 3103 (QL); Chassé v. Union canadienne, compagnie d’assurance, [1999] R.R.A. 165; Lemieux v. 9110‑9595 Québec inc., [2004] Q.J. No. 9489 (QL); Joseph v. Assurances générales des Caisses Desjardins inc., SOQUIJ AZ‑99036669; Bureau v. Beauce Société mutuelle d’assurance générale, SOQUIJ AZ‑96035006; Richard‑Gagné v. Poiré, [2006] Q.J. No. 9350 (QL), 2006 QCCS 4980; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; Tolofson v. Jensen, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; Lipohar v. The Queen (1999), 200 C.L.R. 485, [1999] HCA 65; Morguard Properties Ltd. v. City of Winnipeg, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 493; Rees v. Convergia, [2005] Q.J. No. 3248 (QL), 2005 QCCA 353; Garcia Transport Ltée v. Royal Trust Co., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 499; Rudder v. Microsoft Corp. (1999), 2 C.P.R. (4th) 474; Kanitz v. Rogers Cable Inc. (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 299.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Act to add the reformed law of evidence and of prescription and the reformed private international law to the Civil Code of Québec, Draft Bill, 2nd Sess., 33rd Leg., Quebec, 1988, ss. 3477, 3511.
Act to amend the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of arbitration, S.Q. 1986, c. 73.
Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act and the Act respecting the collection of certain debts, Bill 48, 2nd Sess., 37th Leg., Quebec, 2006.
Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act and the Act respecting the collection of certain debts, S.Q. 2006, c. 56, ss. 2, 17, 18.
Act to establish a legal framework for information technology, R.S.Q., c. C‑1.1, s. 5.
Civil Code of Lower Canada, arts. 8.1, 27, 85.
Civil Code of Québec, Bill 125, 1st Sess., 34th Leg., introduced December 18, 1990.
Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, arts. 1379, 1435, 1436, 1437, 2639, 2640, 2642, 3094, 3111, 3117, 3118, 3134, 3139, 3141 to 3147, 3148, 3149, 3150, 3151, 3152 to 3154.
Code de procédure civile (France), arts. 1458, 1492.
Code Napoléon.
Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C‑25, arts. 21.1, 31, 33, 68, 940, 940.1, 940.6, 943, 943.1, 943.2, 946.4, para. 1(2), 948 to 951.2, 999(d), 1000, 1051.
Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 17 (2nd Supp .).
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 96 .
Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P‑40.1, ss. 8, 11.1, 54.8 to 54.16, 271, para. 3.
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.Q., c. T‑16, s. 10.
Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé, RO 1988 1776, s. 114.
International Documents
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980), art. 3.
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 330 U.N.T.S. 3, art. II.
United Nations. Commission on International Trade Law. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, U.N. Doc. A/40/17 (1985), Ann. I, arts. 8(1), 16, Explanatory Note.
United Nations. Commission on International Trade Law. Report of the Working Group on International Contract Practices on the work of its fifth session (New York, 22 February ‑ 4 March 1983) (A/CN.9/233).
Authors Cited
Audit, Bernard. Droit international privé, 4e éd. Paris: Économica, 2006.
Bachand, Frédéric. “Does Article 8 of the Model Law Call for Full or Prima Facie Review of the Arbitral Tribunal’s Jurisdiction?” (2006), 22 Arb. Int’l 463.
Bachand, Frédéric. L’intervention du juge canadien avant et durant un arbitrage commercial international. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 2005.
Baudouin, Jean‑Louis. Les obligations, 3e éd. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 1989.
Baudouin et Jobin: Les obligations, 6e éd. par Pierre‑Gabriel Jobin avec la collaboration de Nathalie Vézina. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 2005.
Béguin, Jacques. L’arbitrage commercial international. Montréal: Quebec Research Centre of Private & Comparative Law, 1987.
Bienvenu, Pierre. “The Enforcement of International Arbitration Agreements and Referral Applications in the NAFTA Region” (1999), 59 R. du B. 705.
Binder, Peter. International Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions, 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005.
Bouchard, Mario. “L’autorisation d’exercer le recours collectif” (1980), 21 C. de D. 855.
Brierley, John E. C. “Arbitration Agreements: Articles 2638‑2643”, in Reform of the Civil Code, vol. 3B, Marine insurance, Carriage by water, Affreightment, Deposit, Loan, Suretyship, Gaming and Wagering, Transaction, Arbitration Agreements, Insurance and Annuities. Translated by Susan Altschul. Texts written for the Barreau du Québec and the Chambre des notaires du Québec. Montréal: Barreau du Québec, 1993.
Brierley, John E. C. “Quebec’s New (1986) Arbitration Law” (1987‑88), 13 Can. Bus L.J. 58.
Brierley, John E. C., and Roderick A. Macdonald. Quebec Civil Law: An Introduction to Quebec Private Law. Toronto: Edmond Montgomery, 1993.
Canada. Industry Canada. Office of Consumer Affairs. Your Internet Business: Earning Consumer Trust. A guide to consumer protection for on‑line merchants. Ottawa: The Department, 1999.
Casey, J. Brian, and Janet Mills. Arbitration Law of Canada : Practice and Procedure. Huntington, N.Y.: Juris Publishing, 2005.
Castel, J.‑G. Canadian Conflict of Laws, 4th ed. Toronto: Butterworths, 1997.
Collier, J. G. Conflict of Laws, 3rd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Cornu, Gérard, dir. Vocabulaire juridique, 8e éd. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2000, “constater”.
Côté, Pierre‑André. The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 3rd ed. Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 2000.
Côté, Pierre‑André, et Daniel Jutras. Le droit transitoire civil: Sources annotées. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 1994 (feuilles mobiles mises à jour février 2006, envoi no 17).
Crépeau, Paul‑André. “Une certaine conception de la recodification”, dans Du Code civil du Québec: Contribution à l’histoire immédiate d’une recodification réussie. Montréal: Thémis, 2005, 23.
Cromwell, T. A. “Aspects of Constitutional Judicial Review in Canada” (1995), 46 S.C. L. Rev. 1027.
Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws, vol. 1, 14th ed. Under the general editorship of Lawrence Collins. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006.
Emanuelli, Claude. Droit international privé québécois, 2e éd. Montréal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2006.
Fortier, L. Yves. “Delimiting the Spheres of Judicial and Arbitral Power: ‘Beware, My Lord, of Jealousy’” (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 143.
Gaillard, Emmanuel, and John Savage. Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999.
Gautrais, Vincent. Know your law: Guide respecting the management of technology‑based documents. Québec: Fondation du Barreau du Québec, 2005.
Glenn, H. Patrick. “Droit international privé”, dans La réforme du Code civil, t. 3, Priorités et hypothèques, preuve et prescription, publicité des droits, droit international privé, dispositions transitoires. Textes réunis par le Barreau du Québec et la Chambre des notaires du Québec. Sainte‑Foy, Qué.: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1993, 669.
Goldstein, Gérald, et Ethel Groffier. Droit international privé, t. I, Théorie générale, et II, Règles spécifiques. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 2003.
Guillemard, Sylvette. Le droit international privé face au contrat de vente cyberspatial. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 2006.
Guillemard, Sylvette. “Liberté contractuelle et rattachement juridictionnel: le droit québécois face aux droits français et européen”, E.J.C.L., vol. 8.2, juin 2004, www.ejcl.org/82/abs82‑1.html.
Guillemard, Sylvette, et Alain Prujiner. “La codification internationale du droit international privé: un échec?” (2005), 46 C. de D. 175.
Hill, Jonathan. “The Exercise of Jurisdiction in Private International Law”, in Patrick Capps, Malcolm Evans and Stratos Konstadinidis, eds., Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal Perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003.
Kerans, Roger P. Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts. Edmonton: Juriliber, 1994.
Kierstead, Shelley. “Referral to Arbitration under Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law: The Canadian Approach” (1999), 31 Can. Bus. L.J. 98.
Lefebvre, Brigitte. “Le contrat d’adhésion” (2003), 105 R. du N. 439.
Lehmann, Matthias. “A Plea for a Transnational Approach to Arbitrability in Arbitral Practice” (2003‑2004), 42 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 753.
Lluelles, Didier, et Benoît Moore. Droit des obligations. Montréal: Thémis, 2006.
Loquin, Éric. “Compétence arbitrale”, Juris‑classeur Procédure civile, fasc. 1034. France: Éditions Techniques, 1975.
Loussouarn, Yvon, Pierre Bourel et Pascal de Vareilles‑Sommières. Droit international privé, 8e éd. Paris: Dalloz, 2004.
Makarov, Alexander N. “Sources”, in Kurt Lipstein, ed., International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. III, Private International Law. New York: Oceana, 1972.
Marquis, Louis. “La compétence arbitrale: une place au soleil ou à l’ombre du pouvoir judiciaire” (1990), 21 R.D.U.S. 303.
Marquis, Louis. “La notion d’arbitrage commercial international en droit québécois” (1991‑1992), 37 McGill L.J. 448.
Marquis, Louis. “Le droit français et le droit québécois de l’arbitrage conventionnel”, dans H. P. Glenn, dir., Droit québécois et droit français: communauté, autonomie, concordance. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 1993, 447.
Mustill, Michael John. “Arbitration: History and Background” (1989), 6 J. Int’l Arb. 43.
North, Peter, and J. J. Fawcett. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13th ed. London: Butterworths, 1999.
Parisien, Serge. “La protection accordée aux consommateurs et le commerce électronique”, dans Daniel Poulin et autres, dir., Guide juridique du commerçant électronique. Montréal: Thémis, 2003, 175.
Québec. Assemblée nationale. Journal des débats, vol. 29, no 46, 1re sess., 33e lég., 16 juin 1986, p. 2975.
Québec. Assemblée nationale. Journal des débats, vol. 29, no 55, 1re sess., 33e lég., 30 octobre 1986, p. 3672.
Québec. Assemblée nationale. Journal des débats, vol. 30, no 134, 2e sess., 33e lég., 21 juin 1989, p. 6941 et 6970.
Quebec. Civil Code Revision Office. Report on the Québec Civil Code, vol. I, Draft Civil Code. Québec: Éditeur officiel, 1978.
Quebec. Civil Code Revision Office. Report on the Québec Civil Code, vol. II, Commentaries. Québec: Éditeur officiel, 1978.
Quebec. Ministère de la Justice. Comité de révision de la procédure civile. Document de consultation. La révision de la procédure civile. Sainte‑Foy, Qué.: Le Comité, 2000.
Quebec. Ministère de la Justice. Commentaires du ministre de la Justice — Le Code civil du Québec: Un mouvement de société, t. I et II. Québec: Publications du Québec, 1993.
Quebec. Ministère de la Justice. Projet de loi 125: Code civil du Québec, Commentaires détaillés sur les dispositions du projet, Livre X: Du droit international privé et disposition finale (Art. 3053 à 3144). Québec: Le Ministère, 1991.
Rochette, Stéphane. “Commentaire sur la décision United European Bank and Trust Nassau Ltd. c. Duchesneau — Le tribunal québécois doit‑il examiner le caractère abusif d’une clause d’élection de for incluse dans un contrat d’adhésion?”, dans Repères, EYB 2006REP504.
Saumier, Geneviève. “Les objections à la compétence internationale des tribunaux québécois: nature et procédure” (1998), 58 R. du B. 145.
Sullivan, Ruth. Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 4th ed. Markham, Ont.: Butterworths, 2002.
Talpis, Jeffrey A. “Choice of Law and Forum Selection Clauses under the New Civil Code of Quebec” (1994), 96 R. du N. 183.
Talpis, J. A., and J.‑G. Castel. “Interpreting the rules of private international law”, in Reform of the Civil Code, vol. 5B, Private International Law. Translated by Susan Altschul. Texts written for the Barreau du Québec and the Chambre des notaires du Québec. Montréal: Barreau du Québec, 1993.
Talpis, J. A., et G. Goldstein, “Analyse critique de l’avant‑projet de loi du Québec en droit international privé” (1989), 91 R. du N. 456.
Talpis, J. A., et G. Goldstein. “Analyse critique de l’avant‑projet de loi du Québec en droit international privé” (1988), 91 R. du N. 606.
Tetley, William. International Conflict of Laws: Common, Civil and Maritime. Montréal: Yvon Blais, 1994.
Thuilleaux, Sabine. L’arbitrage commercial au Québec: Droit interne — Droit international privé. Cowansville, Qué.: Yvon Blais, 1991.
Thuilleaux, Sabine, et Dean M. Proctor. “L’application des conventions d’arbitrage au Canada: une difficile coexistence entre les compétences judiciaire et arbitrale” (1992), 37 McGill L.J. 470.
Tremblay, Raymond. “La nature du différend et la fonction de l’arbitre consensuel” (1988), 91 R. du N. 246.
Vermeys, Nicolas W. “Commentaire sur la décision Dell Computer Corporation c. Union des consommateurs — Quand ‘browsewrap’ rime avec ‘arbitrabilité’”, dans Repères, EYB 2005REP375.
Vischer, Frank. “Connecting Factors”, in Kurt Lipstein, ed., International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. III, Private International Law. New York: Oceana, 1999.
Walker, Janet. Castel & Walker: Canadian Conflict of Laws, vol. 1. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005 (loose-leaf updated 2007, release 7).
Wyler, Éric, et Alain Papaux. “Extranéité de valeurs et de systèmes en droit international privé et en droit international public”, dans Éric Wyler et Alain Papaux, dir., L’extranéité ou le dépassement de l’ordre juridique étatique. Paris: Éditions A. Pédone, 1999, 239.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Mailhot and Morissette JJ.A., and Lemelin J. (ad hoc)), [2005] R.J.Q. 1448, [2005] Q.J. No. 7011 (QL), 2005 QCCA 570, affirming a decision of Langlois J., J.E. 2004‑457, [2004] Q.J. No. 155 (QL). Appeal allowed, Bastarache, LeBel and Fish JJ. dissenting.
Mahmud Jamal, Anne‑Marie Lizotte and Dominic Dupoy, for the appellant.
Ronald Bourguignon, Yves Lauzon and Careen Hannouche, for the respondents.
Mistrale Goudreau and Philippa Lawson, for the interveners the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
J. Brian Casey, Janet E. Mills and John Pirie, for the intervener ADR Chambers Inc.
Stefan Martin and Margaret Weltrowska, for the intervener ADR Institute of Canada.
Pierre Bienvenu, Frédéric Bachand and Azim Hussain, for the intervener the London Court of International Arbitration.
English version of the judgment of McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. delivered by
1 Deschamps J. — The expansion of trade is without question spurring the development of rules governing international relations. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including arbitration, are among the means the international community has adopted to increase efficiency in economic relationships. Concomitantly, in Quebec, recourse to arbitration has increased greatly owing this mechanism’s flexibility when compared with the traditional justice system.
2 This appeal relates to the debate over the place of arbitration in Quebec’s civil justice system. More specifically, the Court is asked to consider the validity and applicability of an arbitration agreement in the context of a domestic legal dispute under the rules of Quebec law and international law, and to determine whether the arbitrator or a court of law should rule first on these issues.
3 To ensure the internal consistency of the Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64 (“C.C.Q.”), it is necessary to adopt a contextual interpretation that limits the scope of the provisions of the title on the international jurisdiction of Quebec authorities to situations with a relevant foreign element. The prohibition in art. 3149 C.C.Q. against waiving the jurisdiction of Quebec authorities is found in that title and accordingly applies only to situations with a relevant foreign element. Since arbitration is in essence a neutral institution, it does not in itself have any foreign element. An arbitration tribunal has only those connections that the parties to the arbitration agreement intended it to have. The independence and territorial neutrality of arbitration are characteristics that must be promoted and preserved in order to foster the development of this institution. In the case at bar, the arbitration clause was not prohibited by any provision of Quebec legislation at the time it was invoked. Consequently, for the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal, refer Mr. Dumoulin’s claim to arbitration and dismiss the motion for authorization to institute a class action.
1. Facts
4 Dell Computer Corporation (“Dell”) is a company that sells computer equipment retail over the Internet. It has its Canadian head office in Toronto and a place of business in Montreal. In the late afternoon of Friday, April 4, 2003, the order pages on Dell’s English‑language Web site indicated a price of $89 rather than $379 for the Axim X5 300 MHz handheld computer and a price of $118 rather than $549 for the Axim X5 400 MHz handheld computer. The pages of the site where the products were advertised listed the correct prices, however. On April 5, on being informed of the errors, Dell blocked access to the erroneous order pages through the usual address, although the pages were not withdrawn from the site. On the morning of April 7, Olivier Dumoulin, a Quebec consumer, was told about the prices by an acquaintance who sent him the detailed links, which the parties described as “deep links”. These links made it possible to access the order pages without following the usual route, that is, through the home page and the advertising pages. In short, the deep links made it possible to circumvent the measures taken by Dell. Using a deep link, Mr. Dumoulin ordered a computer at the price of $89. Shortly after Mr. Dumoulin placed his order, Dell corrected the two price errors. That same day, Dell posted a price correction notice and at the same time announced that it would not process orders for computers at the prices of $89 and $118. At trial, a Dell employee testified that over the course of that weekend, 354 Quebec consumers had placed a total of 509 orders for these Axim computers, whereas on an average weekend, only one to three of them were sold in Quebec.
5 On April 17, Mr. Dumoulin put Dell in default, demanding that it honour his order at the price of $89. When Dell refused, the Union des consommateurs and Mr. Dumoulin (“Union”) filed a motion for authorization to institute a class action against Dell. Dell applied for referral of Mr. Dumoulin’s claim to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in the