## Facts

- Motient (a U.S. satellite purchaser) contracted with Hughes (a U.S. builder) to construct a communications satellite.
- Hughes subcontracted Spar (a Canadian company with major operations in Quebec) to manufacture and integrate the satellite’s communications payload at Spar’s Quebec facility.
- After launch and successful in-orbit testing, Motient accepted the satellite and arranged for U.S.-based entities, including Viacom and Adaptative, to conduct testing and operate the satellite from ground stations outside Quebec.
- The satellite later suffered serious damage in space, allegedly caused by improper commands and operational/testing errors originating from ground facilities outside Quebec.
- Spar sued the U.S. companies in Quebec, alleging economic loss tied to reputational harm suffered in Quebec (including loss of performance incentives, future profits, and investigation expenses).
- Defendants filed declinatory motions contesting Quebec jurisdiction under Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.) art. 3148 and, alternatively, sought dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds under C.C.Q. art. 3135.
- The Quebec Superior Court and Court of Appeal held Quebec had jurisdiction and refused to decline it; the defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Quebec courts had international jurisdiction over a personal patrimonial action under C.C.Q. art. 3148(3) because “damage was suffered in Quebec” or an “injurious act” occurred there.
2. Whether a separate constitutional “real and substantial connection” test must be satisfied in addition to the codified jurisdictional rules in Book Ten of the C.C.Q.
3. Whether, even if Quebec had jurisdiction, it should decline jurisdiction under C.C.Q. art. 3135 (forum non conveniens) in favor of a U.S. forum.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed Quebec jurisdiction.
- Reputational and economic harm suffered in Quebec satisfied the “damage” basis of jurisdiction under C.C.Q. art. 3148(3), notwithstanding that the alleged operational acts occurred outside Quebec.
- The “real and substantial connection” concept was not an additional, free-standing prerequisite beyond Quebec’s codified jurisdictional rules; connection concerns are addressed within the Code’s structure and interpretation.
- Forum non conveniens under C.C.Q. art. 3135 is available but exceptional; the defendants failed to show another forum was clearly more appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Under C.C.Q. art. 3148(3), damage suffered in Quebec—including economic loss tied to injury to commercial reputation in Quebec—can ground jurisdiction even when the defendant’s conduct occurred elsewhere.
- Quebec’s international jurisdiction analysis is governed primarily by the C.C.Q.’s codified provisions; generalized connection tests from common-law provinces are not to be imposed as separate requirements.
- C.C.Q. art. 3135 permits forum non conveniens dismissal only where another forum is clearly better positioned to decide the dispute; the burden rests on the party seeking the decline of jurisdiction.
- In applying Quebec’s codified private international law rules, courts begin with the text and scheme of the Code; general considerations (e.g., comity and fairness) guide interpretation but do not displace the statutory bases of jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Court held Quebec could hear Spar’s claim because the alleged reputational and related economic harm was suffered in Quebec, rejected any separate “real and substantial connection” overlay beyond the Civil Code’s jurisdictional rules, and confirmed that forum non conveniens under art. 3135 requires proof that a foreign forum is clearly more appropriate.


Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. Am. Mobile Satellite Corp., 2002 SCC 78, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 205 (Can.)