Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:04:18.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2018

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

JOOST BLOM
JOOST BLOM*
Affiliation:
Joost Blom, Professor Emeritus, Peter A Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases / Jurisprudence
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 56 , October 2019 , pp. 571 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sub nom Flying Frog Trading Co Ltd v Amer Sports OYJ.

2 SBC 2003, c 28 [CJPTA (BC)].

3 Ibid, s 3(e).

4 Ibid, s 10(e)(i).

5 Ibid, s 10(g).

6 The court, 2018 BCCA 384 at para 24, cited AG Armeno Mines & Minerals Inc v PT Pukuafu Indah, 2000 BCCA 405.

7 A presumptive connecting factor that was first applied in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 SCR 572. Under the CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 3(e), one of the grounds of territorial competence is that there is a real and substantial connection between the facts giving rise to the claim and the jurisdiction in which the court sits. The statutory presumptions in s 10 do not exhaustively define when such a connection exists, so cases falling outside any of those presumptions can still meet the s 3(e) requirement. The Van Breda case introduced the idea of presumptive connecting factors as the common law analogue of the statutory presumptions in the CJPTA, a model act that has been enacted by three provinces. The common law presumptive connecting factors approved in Van Breda include some, such as the one in question, that are not among the CJPTA’s presumptions.

8 2018 ONSC 297.

9 2018 ABQB 985.

10 2018 BCSC 565.

11 CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 10(e)(i).

12 2018 NSSC 227.

13 2018 NSSC 50.

14 The court relied mainly on the presumed real and substantial connection based on a business carried on in the province. Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SNS 2003 (2d Sess), c 2, s 11(h) [CJPTA (NS)].

15 3289444 Nova Scotia Ltd v RW Armstrong & Associates Inc, 2016 NSSC 330, 43 CBR (6th) 59, noted in Joost Blom, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2016” (2016) 54 CYIL 585 at 591.

16 CJPTA (NS), supra note 14.

17 2018 ONSC 4434 (Master).

18 2018 NBQB 83.

19 2018 BCSC 1416.

20 2018 ONSC 7761.

21 SS 1997, c C-41.1 [CJPTA (SK)].

22 Ibid, s 9(e)(i).

23 Ibid, s 9(g).

24 Governed by CJPTA (SK), supra note 21, s 10.

25 Breeden v Black, 2012 SCC 19 at para 27, [2012] 1 SCR 667. The reasoning behind this comment was that the defendant would presumably likewise suffer a disadvantage if unable to make its defence before the foreign court as it wished to do.

26 Haaretz.com v Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 at para 100, [2018] 2 SCR 3 (Karakatsanis J) [Haaretz.com], disagreed (as did the dissenting judges) with bringing into the equation the law that the alternative forum would apply.

27 Éditions Écosociété Inc v Banro Corp, 2012 SCC 18, [2012] 1 SCR 636.

28 Haaretz.com, supra note 26 at paras 109–19 (Abella J), 144–46 (Wagner J). Abella J favoured extending that test to jurisdiction simpliciter by allowing the presumptive connecting factor of the place of the tort (that is, the place of publication) to be rebutted if the place of most substantial harm was elsewhere (paras 120–30), but Wagner J seemed not to want to go that far (para 147).

29 Ibid at para 94.

30 Ibid at paras 198–204.

31 2018 BCSC 1906.

32 CJPTA (BC), supra note 2.

33 2018 ONCA 816, 428 DLR (4th) 288.

34 2018 BCSC 785.

35 2018 NSSC 254.

36 2018 ABQB 534, aff’g MacDonald v Burke, 2017 ABQB 444 (Master), noted in Joost Blom, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2017” (2017) 55 CYIL 598 at 599 [Blom (2017)].

37 Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, ss 106(2)(b) (submission to the jurisdiction), 106(2)(c) (habitual residence of either spouse at the time the proceeding is started).

38 CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 3(e). The court did not rely on any of the presumptions of real and substantial connection in s 10.

39 2018 SKQB 14.

40 Under the transfer provisions of the CJPTA (SK), supra note 21.

41 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38401 (17 January 2019).

42 2018 BCSC 2172.

43 The jurisdictional provision based on the child’s habitual residence is Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, s 74(2)(a).

44 2018 BCSC 853.

45 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Can TS 1983 No 35, 19 ILM 1501 [Hague Child Abduction Convention], implemented in Ontario by Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, s 46(2).

46 2018 NSCA 90.

47 2018 MBQB 176.

48 Hague Child Abduction Convention, supra note 45, art 13(1)(a) and (b), respectively.

49 2018 BCSC 1691.

50 The power to order the return of a child to a country from which it has been wrongfully removed is in the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, s 77. The provisions are couched in the terminology of the Hague Child Abduction Convention, supra note 45.

51 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38331 (28 March 2019).

52 RSO 1990, c S.5.

53 Ibid, s 138.3.

54 A reporting issue is, basically, an Ontario corporation whose securities are publicly traded, or a non-Ontario corporation whose securities are traded on an exchange in Ontario (ibid, s 1(1) “reporting issuer”).

55 Ibid, s 138.1 “responsible issuer,” para (b).

56 2018 QCCS 4115.

57 Autorisation de pourvoi à la CSC refusée, 38040 (30 août 2018).

58 Art 3093 contains the choice of law rule (custody is governed by the law of the child’s domicile) and art 3142 the jurisdiction rule (Quebec authorities have jurisdiction to decide on custody provided the child is domiciled in Quebec).

59 Art 80 CcQ.

60 Hague Child Abduction Convention, supra note 45.

61 2018 QCCS 736.

62 Art 3139 CcQ: “Where a Quebec authority has jurisdiction on the principal demand, it also has jurisdiction to rule on an incidental demand or a cross-demand.”

63 Autorisation de pourvoi à la CA Qc refusée, 2018 QCCA 1993.

64 Selon l’article 3148(3) les tribunaux québécois peuvent se saisir d’une action personnelle à caractère patrimonial quand l’une ou l’autre des quatre conditions suivantes est remplie : (a) la faute reprochée au défendeur a été commise au Québec; (b) le demandeur a subi un préjudice au Québec; (c) un fait générateur de préjudice s’est produit au Québec; ou (d) l’une des obligations découlant d’un contrat devait y être exécutée.

65 2018 QCCS 546.

66 2018 QCCA 1998.

67 2018 QCCS 3458.

68 2018 QCCS 2701.

69 2018 QCCS 3733.

70 Autorisation de pourvoi à la CA Qc refusée, 2018 QCCA 1560; autorisation de pourvoi à la CSC refusée, 38411 (21 mars 2019).

71 CQLR, c C-25.01.

72 2018 QCCS 107.

73 RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 17.05(3).

74 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 15 November 1965, 658 UNTS 163 (entered into force 10 February 1969) [Hague Service Convention].

75 Ibid, art 10.

76 Art 3 requires that the request must be made by the “authority,” which in Ontario is the Ministry of the Attorney General, or by a “judicial officer competent under the law of the State in which the documents originate.” The court held that the applicant’s lawyer was such a judicial officer.

77 2018 ONSC 1979.

78 2018 ONSC 3350.

79 2018 ONSC 3901.

80 Ibid.

81 Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, s 5(1)(a)(iv) (defining when a claim is discovered).

82 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 347.

83 RSBC 1996, c 155, s 1(1).

84 RSBC 1996, c 78, Part 2.

85 Ibid, s 29(6)(a)(i).

86 Ibid, s 29(6)(b).

87 Ibid, s 29(6)(d).

88 Ibid, s 29(6)(f).

89 Ibid, s 29(6)(g).

90 2018 QCCA 1532.

91 2017 QCCS 430, noté dans Joost Blom, “Jurisprudence canadienne en matière de droit international privé en 2017” (2017) 55 ACDI 598 aux pp 635–36.

92 [1994] 3 SCR 1022.

93 Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12, s 2(2).

94 Das v George Weston Ltd, 2017 ONSC 4129, noted in Blom (2017), supra note 36 at 638.

95 Minera Aquiline Argentina SA v IMA Exploration Inc, 2006 BCSC 1102 at para 185, aff’d 2007 BCCA 319, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 32211 (20 December 2007).

96 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38235 (14 February 2019).

97 The second paragraph of article 3111 reads, “Where a juridical act contains no foreign element, it remains nevertheless subject to the mandatory provisions of the law of the State which would apply in the absence of a designation.” It is a proviso to the first paragraph, according to which a juridical act, whether or not it contains any foreign element, is governed by the law expressly or impliedly designated in the act.