## Facts

- Jean Venne, a Quebec architect, alleged he was retained on behalf of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to prepare preliminary studies and sketches for a national pavilion the Congo proposed to build at Expo 67.
- The Congo later decided not to proceed with the pavilion.
- Venne sued in Quebec to recover architectural fees.
- The Congo filed a declinatory exception contesting jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity.
- The record at the jurisdiction stage was limited to the claim, the declinatory exception, and admissions that (1) the Congo accredited a chargé d’affaires as commissioner general to the exhibition and (2) the Congo is a sovereign state.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign sovereign state was immune from the jurisdiction of Quebec courts on Venne’s claim for architectural fees.
2. Whether retaining an architect for a national pavilion at an international exposition was a sovereign/public act or a private/commercial act for state-immunity purposes.
3. Whether contesting jurisdiction by declinatory exception constituted submission to the court’s jurisdiction or waiver of immunity.

## Decision

- Appeal allowed; the declinatory exception should have been upheld and the action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- On the record, employing the architect was treated as an act performed in the course of a sovereign act of state connected to the Congo’s official participation in an international exposition, including action through diplomatic representatives and foreign affairs channels.
- The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether Canadian law had adopted the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity because immunity would apply even under that theory on these facts.
- Raising immunity by a jurisdictional plea was not submission or waiver; a sovereign is not taken to submit unless it clearly asks the court, in open court, to exercise jurisdiction on the merits.
- Dissent: two judges would have let the claim proceed because the limited record did not permit reliable classification of the contract as sovereign rather than commercial; acting through diplomats did not, by itself, make the transaction sovereign.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign state is immune from domestic jurisdiction where the claim arises from an act done in the performance of a sovereign act of state.
- Classification of an act as sovereign/public or private/commercial is a fact-dependent question to be decided on all the evidence, without presumptions based solely on the identity of the actors or an automatic shifting burden.
- A court may avoid resolving whether the restrictive theory forms part of domestic law if the state would be immune even under that approach on the established facts.
- A foreign state does not waive immunity by appearing solely to contest jurisdiction; waiver requires a clear, express submission requesting the court to exercise jurisdiction over the merits.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Congo was immune from Quebec court jurisdiction on a claim for architectural fees because, on the limited record, the engagement related to sovereign participation in an international exposition, and the Congo did not waive immunity by filing a jurisdictional objection.


Gouvernement de la République Démocratique du Congo v. Venne, [1971] S.C.R. 997 (Can.)