Quebec’s agricultural marketing regulator has rejected an industry request to suspend preparations for two private-forest wood-marketing arbitrations while a separate producer-referendum application is decided.
The Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec delivered its case-management ruling orally on October 8, 2026. Its written decision 13241, dated October 14, 2026, concerns agreements sought by the Syndicat des producteurs de bois de la Côte-du-Sud and Le Syndicat des producteurs forestiers du Sud du Québec.
The ruling settles the request to pause case preparation. It does not set the marketing agreements’ terms or decide whether the requested referendum should take place.
Why the industry council sought a pause
The Conseil de l’industrie forestière du Québec, the accredited association responsible for negotiating with both producer groups, argued that the referendum proceeding could affect the Côte-du-Sud arbitration. It said a suspension would avoid disproportionate work without causing unreasonable prejudice.
The council also wanted the southern Quebec case to remain linked to Côte-du-Sud to save resources. A January case-management arrangement had provided for joint preparation and preliminary hearings, and permitted common evidence where relevant, while preserving separate arbitration decisions.
The referendum application, filed in May 2026 by forestry groups and a property-owner association, seeks a producer vote on the Côte-du-Sud sales-agency regulation. The Côte-du-Sud producer group responded with a motion to have that application dismissed.
The agency regulations had been approved in 2024. Their implementation was delayed while the parties pursued marketing agreements, and the two producer groups requested arbitration in May 2025 after withdrawing from conciliation.
Delay weighed against the public interest
The Régie emphasized its statutory role in promoting efficient, orderly marketing and resolving disputes in the public interest. Sections 116 and 117 of the governing marketing statute provide for arbitration at an interested party’s request after unsuccessful conciliation, with the agreement’s terms settled by an arbitral award.
At the time of the ruling, the arbitration files were still not ready to proceed. The panel considered the suspension request especially late: the council had known about the referendum application since May and was represented by the same lawyer in the related proceedings.
The Côte-du-Sud regulation benefited from a presumption of validity, the Régie added. It cautioned against allowing a referendum application to be used solely to delay arbitration, without deciding the merits of the referendum request.
The panel relied on procedural rules requiring simple, prompt proceedings and avoidance of unjustified expense or delay. Those rules give it broad discretion to coordinate cases and set their order of priority; Quebec’s Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to its proceedings.
Making both arbitrations wait for the referendum process, potentially including judicial review, could mean months or years of delay, the Régie concluded. That would undermine orderly wood marketing and the public interest. It therefore rejected the council’s suspension request in both files.
