Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdictional conflict over whether the Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec, rather than the Court of Québec (Small Claims), has exclusive authority to decide disputes arising from the maple syrup marketing plan and Convention.
• Interpretation of the Loi sur la mise en marché des produits agricoles, alimentaires et de la pêche, the plan conjoint and the Convention to determine if they oust the jurisdiction of common law courts in favour of the Régie.
• Alleged mishandling and prolonged storage of maple syrup barrels by the authorized buyer, leading to their classification as unfit for consumption and destruction, forming the basis of the producer’s claim for damages.
• Application of the Convention’s dispute-resolution and arbitration mechanism (Grief procedure) as an exclusive remedy for disputes over quality verification, inspection and classification.
• Assessment of PPAQ’s role and responsibility as the body charged with administering the plan conjoint and enforcing classification and conservation standards in relation to the producer’s alleged loss.
• Treatment of costs when a court declines jurisdiction, with the court ordering that each party bear its own legal costs rather than awarding costs to the successful defendants.

Factual background

David Madore is a maple syrup producer in Québec who is subject to a joint marketing plan (plan conjoint) established under the Loi sur la mise en marché des produits agricoles, alimentaires et de la pêche. Producteurs et productrices acéricoles du Québec (PPAQ) is responsible for implementing and administering this plan for maple producers. Les Industries Bernard et Fils ltée (Bernard) is an authorized buyer within this regulated marketing framework. A Convention for the marketing of maple syrup for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 marketing years was homologated by the Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec. This Convention binds producers like Mr. Madore, authorized buyers such as Bernard and PPAQ, and governs the storage, quality verification and grading of maple syrup, as well as establishing an exclusive dispute-resolution procedure for grievances arising from its interpretation or application. In 2022, Bernard received several barrels of maple syrup produced by Mr. Madore and stored them. Among those barrels, three were later classified as being unfit for human consumption and were destroyed. Mr. Madore alleged that the syrup became non-compliant because of improper and overly long storage conditions attributable to Bernard, and he claimed to have suffered financial loss as a result. He brought a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec against both Bernard and PPAQ, seeking damages for the destruction of the syrup. He argued that Bernard mishandled the syrup and failed to respect its obligations under the Convention, and that PPAQ bore responsibility as the entity charged with applying the plan conjoint and overseeing classification and conservation methods.

Policy and contractual framework

The marketing of maple syrup in this case is governed by a statutory and regulatory scheme built around a plan conjoint and a homologated Convention. The plan conjoint for maple producers establishes that PPAQ administers and enforces the plan and related quality and conservation standards. The Convention on maple syrup marketing, homologated by the Régie, is a central document: it binds all producers, authorized buyers and PPAQ and sets out the rules for storage, quality control and grading of maple syrup. The Convention also includes a detailed and exclusive process for resolving any “Grief” – broadly defined to encompass disputes, grievances, claims or differences regarding the interpretation or application of the Convention. Where no agreement can be reached among the parties on issues relating to classification, inspection or non-specified modalities, the Convention provides that the Régie will resolve the dispute, and a producer may bring an unresolved Grief to arbitration before the Régie. One of the key clauses invoked in this case is article 8.01 of the Convention, which governs an authorized buyer’s obligations concerning quality verification and grading of syrup in barrels received from a producer. Under this article, an authorized buyer who receives maple syrup in barrels from a producer must ensure that the quality and grading of the product are checked “rapidly and without undue delay”, in accordance with the applicable quality regulation and any convention in force. To that end, the buyer must, within 15 days of receiving the barrels, reach an agreement with the exclusive agent to have the syrup graded and inspected, unless a different timeframe is agreed in writing between the producer and the authorized buyer. Mr. Madore’s claim is rooted in this framework: he contends that Bernard failed to comply with article 8.01 by not ensuring timely verification and grading of his syrup, and that this failure, combined with poor storage conditions, led to the syrup being declared unfit and destroyed. He further seeks to hold PPAQ liable on the basis that PPAQ is responsible for enforcing classification standards and assessing conservation methods under the plan conjoint.

Jurisdictional issue before the Court

Before hearing the merits, the Court of Québec, on its own initiative, raised the question of its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. This step reflects that jurisdiction is treated as a matter of public order, not a mere procedural technicality. PPAQ produced another decision from the Court of Québec, apparently to support the view that the Court had jurisdiction; however, the presiding judge noted that the earlier decision in that file did not finally resolve the jurisdictional issue, and a prior judgment in the same matter had examined it in more detail. After reviewing the legislative framework, the plan conjoint, the Convention and the relevant case law, the Court concluded that the dispute brought by Mr. Madore falls squarely within the exclusive competence of the Régie. The underlying reasoning is that when a dispute concerns the interpretation or application of a marketing convention or arises in the context of a joint marketing plan, the legislature intended that the Régie, as a specialized administrative body, exercise exclusive authority. This line of authority emphasizes the Régie’s highly specialized expertise in the complex regulatory field of agricultural and agri-food marketing and the deliberate legislative design entrusting it, rather than courts of general jurisdiction, with arbitrating disputes tied to the operation of a plan conjoint and its related conventions.

Application of the exclusive dispute-resolution scheme

In applying these principles to the facts, the Court underscored that Mr. Madore’s claim is built on alleged non-compliance with the Convention, particularly in relation to article 8.01, and on PPAQ’s responsibilities under the plan conjoint. The producer’s complaint against Bernard specifically alleges failure to arrange for timely verification and classification of the syrup within the Convention’s timeframes and procedures. His complaint against PPAQ is likewise grounded in PPAQ’s role as the body that must ensure enforcement of classification norms and evaluate conservation methods under the plan conjoint. Because the claim thus directly raises questions about the interpretation and application of the Convention and arises from the implementation of the joint marketing plan, the Court held that it falls within the category of “Grief” that the Convention requires to be resolved through its own mechanism, culminating in arbitration before the Régie. The Court contrasted this situation with earlier appellate authority where the Court of Québec retained jurisdiction over a contractual retention that did not involve interpreting or applying a marketing convention or a plan conjoint. In that earlier scenario, the dispute did not involve a Grief under the Convention; here, by contrast, every aspect of Mr. Madore’s claim is embedded in the Convention and the plan conjoint, and therefore in the Régie’s domain.

Disposition, successful parties and monetary consequences

Having found that the Régie has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from the application and interpretation of the maple syrup marketing Convention and plan conjoint, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, declined jurisdiction over Mr. Madore’s claim. The court therefore rejected his action against both defendants, Les Industries Bernard et Fils ltée and Producteurs et productrices acéricoles du Québec, without reaching the merits of his allegations about the storage and destruction of the syrup. On the question of costs, the court noted the general principle that costs are normally awarded to the successful party, but in the particular circumstances it ordered that each party bear its own legal costs. As a result, the successful parties in this proceeding are the defendants, Bernard and PPAQ, and no damages, indemnity or costs were awarded in their favour; the total monetary amount ordered to be paid to the successful parties cannot be determined because the court did not grant any sum and directed that each party absorb its own expenses.