In 2024, the claimants filed a claim against the defendant carrier due to changes to the planned itinerary for a cruise visiting various countries on the European continent. The defendant requested the dismissal of the claim filed with the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec for lack of jurisdiction. According to the defendant, the claimants should have filed their claim in Miami, Florida.

On 6 March 2024, the claimants booked their cruise. On 7 March, they received an invoice from the defendant containing important information applicable to the booking, such as insurance and boarding conditions. This invoice did not specify the competent jurisdiction or the applicable law in the event of legal action. The invoice, however, referred the claimants to the additional terms and conditions and the 'legally binding Guest Ticket Contract' found on the defendant's website. On 16 May, the claimants accepted the terms and conditions of the Guest Ticket Contract and printed their travel documents the following day. Clause 15 of the Guest Ticket Contract stipulated that

any and all disputes … shall be governed exclusively by the general maritime law of the United States and … shall be commenced, filed and litigated, if at all, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Miami.

There is no evidence that the Guest Ticket Contract was brought to the claimants' attention at the time that the contract was concluded.

On 27 February 2025, the defendant filed a proceeding which included an application for dismissal. The defendant stated that the contract between the parties was governed by, and must be interpreted 'in accordance with Canadian maritime law'. In particular, the defendant submitted that the contract between the parties must be interpreted in accordance with federal Canadian maritime law and the Athens Convention 1974. According to the defendant, art 17 of the Convention applies in this case:

Article 17. Competent jurisdiction

1. An action arising under this Convention shall, at the option of the claimant, be brought before one of the courts listed below, provided that the court is located in a State Party to this Convention:

(a) The court of the place of permanent residence or principal place of business of the defendant, or
(b) The court of the place of departure or that of the destination according to the contract of carriage, or
(c) A court of the State of the domicile or permanent residence of the claim ant, if the defendant has a place of business and is subject to jurisdiction in that State, or
(d) A court of the State where the contract of carriage was made, if the defendant has a place of business and is subject to jurisdiction in that State.

The defendant argued that none of the four options listed above gives jurisdiction to the courts of Québec in this case, because the defendant has no place of business there, and the ports of embarkation and disembarkation for the claimants' cruise are located in Europe. The claimants' recourse cannot be brought in Québec, but should rather be brought in the United States or in Europe. The fact that the claimants reside in Québec is insufficient to give jurisdiction to the Québec courts.

According to the claimants, since the contract binding them to the defendant is a consumer contract, the courts of Québec, and more specifically the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. They submitted that they obtained notice from the Office de la Protection du Consommateur (Consumer Protection Office) to that effect before filing the proceedings.

Held: Judgment for the claimants.

The Athens Convention is an international treaty concluded in 1974 between certain sovereign States. Canada has never formally ratified it or any of the subsequent Protocols amending it. Instead, the Canadian legislature chose to incorporate arts 1-22 of the Athens Convention into Canadian law through the Marine Liability Act, SC 2001, c 6 (the MLA), with some modifications. Certain essential conditions provided for in the Athens Convention are not respected in order for it to potentially be applicable in this case. This action does not relate to a legal event occurring during the claimants' carriage by ship. Nor does it relate to any loss or injury suffered as a result of the claimants' death or bodily harm, or of any delay, loss, or damage to their luggage. Rather, it is a contractual claim for monetary compensation due to changes made to the services provided by the defendant carrier, namely changes to the planned itinerary for the cruise, prior to its departure.

For these reasons, art 17 of the Athens Convention is of no use in resolving the disputed issue.

The Court is not called upon to decide the question of the applicable law, between Canadian maritime law and Québec law or the law of another country, in order to resolve the merits of the dispute between the parties. Rather, the Court must decide whether it is the competent forum to resolve this dispute because of its international dimension.

The evidence reveals that the Guest Ticket Contract, which includes the designation of Florida as the competent forum, is a 15-page document written entirely in English. It is dated '2/2023' and contains no mention of the issuing authority, nor any signature. Although the defendant refers to this document as a 'contract', it is more accurately described as a set of terms and conditions unilaterally established by the defendant, without any possibility of negotiation, for the provision of its services. The Guest Ticket Contract is particularly difficult and complex to read.

The Court also finds that the claimants did not knowingly consent to the Guest Ticket Contract before purchasing their cruise tickets. They only accessed this external document several weeks after their purchase. The contract binding the parties is a service contract for a cruise which also qualifies as a consumer contract within the meaning of art 1384 of the Civil Code of Québec (the CCQ). It also seems, at first glance, to meet the definition of a contract of adhesion.

Article 3149 of the CCQ states that a consumer domiciled or resident in Québec cannot be denied the right to submit any dispute to the Québec courts. It also provides that the Québec authorities have jurisdiction to hear an action based on a consumer contract if the consumer is domiciled or resident in Québec. The claimants are consumers who reside in Québec. Thus, the Court of Québec has jurisdiction over their claim.