Forum of necessity in Quebec Private International Law: C.c.Q. art. 3136
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article 3136 C.c.Q. is a departure from the general rules of jurisdiction applicable to a Quebec authority. Based on the principle of necessity and in the absence of an appropriate forum, it authorizes an authority to exercise jurisdiction in relation to a matter not subject to its direct jurisdiction when it is impossible or unreasonable for the parties to access a foreign authority and when the litigation has a sufficient connection with Quebec. Article 3136 thus confers a discretionary jurisdiction on a Quebec authority. This discretion is limited by the definitional elements expressed in article 3136 and has been further narrowed by an inappropriate interpretation by the Court of Appeal in Lamborghini. The critical factor is that necessity jurisdiction implies that the litigation is subject to an effective remedy in the Quebec forum. Availability of an effective remedy renders reasonable the exercise of necessity jurisdiction and the requirement that foreign litigation be instituted, unreasonable. However, the factor of remedy is ignored, or without expression, in both doctrine and jurisprudence. Supported by a comparative approach between the civil law and the common law, the first part presents a general analysis of this exceptional rule with particular attention to the Swiss law which inspired the drafters of article 3136. In the second part, article 3136 is considered in context with the general provisions of the Code and the legislative history of the provision is clarified. The third part analyzes the definitional elements of the article and the last part examines its application as reflected in the relevant jurisprudence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".