Van Breda: The Supreme Court of Canada Provides Clarity to Canadian Conflict of Laws Rules

by Field Law
Contact

It is a fact of life in the modern world that manufacturers and distributors of products often do business in multiple jurisdictions, across multiple borders. A product manufactured in one country, can be distributed and sold in another, and then used in a third in a manner giving rise to a tort claim. As a result, tort actions involving products often result in tricky cross-border, conflict of laws issues. In such cases, the forum in which the matter is heard may have significant implications in terms of the substantive and procedural law that will apply, or even the size of damage awards.

In a recent trilogy of judgments— Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 (“Van Breda”), Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19, and Éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp., 2012 SCC 18—the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the legal framework pertaining to Canadian conflict of laws issues. LeBel J., writing for the Court in Van Breda, dealt with two major issues. First, he clarified the “real and substantial connection” test that Canadian courts used to determine if they have jurisdiction over actions involving multiple jurisdictions. Second, he clarified the doctrine of forum non-conveniens— which is the principle in which Canadian courts exercise their discretion to decline to hear a matter on the basis that another forum would be more appropriate.

In the two companion judgments— Breeden v. Black, and Éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp.—the Court applied the legal framework developed Van Breda in the context of two multi-jurisdictional defamation actions.

The Van Breda appeal concerned two separate cases in which individuals from Ontario, Canada, suffered catastrophic personal injuries or death while on vacation in Cuba. Actions were brought in Ontario against a number of parties, including the company that managed the Cuban hotels where the accidents occurred. The hotel corporation tried to argue that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction, or in the alternative, that Cuban courts would be the more appropriate forum for the Actions. For both cases, the judges of first instance concluded that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction. Both cases were heard together on appeal by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which confirmed that the Ontario court had jurisdiction.

Writing for the Court, LeBel J., recognized that there was a perceived need for greater direction on how to apply the “real and substantial connection” test used by Canadian courts to determine whether they have jurisdiction. He explained that in order for the “real and substantial connection” test to provide both stability and predictability, that “this branch of the law of conflicts should turn primarily on the identification of objective factors that might link a legal situation or the subject matter of litigation to the court that is seized of it” (at para. 75).

As such, he held that the preferred approach in Canada was for courts to rely on a set of “presumptive factors” which would give rise to a presumption of a real and substantial connection, rather than have the courts base their decisions on what he referred to as “pure and individualized judicial discretion” (at para. 75). LeBel J. held that, in cases involving tort claims, the onus would be on the party seeking to have a court assume jurisdiction to establish the existence of some of the following “presumptive connecting factors” (at para. 90):

• the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province;
• the defendant carries on business in the province;
• the tort was committed in the province; and
• a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province

LeBel J. went on to find that the above list of connecting factors was not closed, and that over time courts may identify new presumptive connecting factors.

Nevertheless, the presumption of jurisdiction, observed LeBel J., could be rebutted by the defendant, who would “bear the burden of negating the presumptive effect of the listed or new factor and convincing the court that the proposed assumption of jurisdiction would be inappropriate” (at para. 81). In cases where no presumptive factor exists, or where the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted, then the court will lack jurisdiction on the basis of there being no real and substantial connection.

LeBel J. then went on to deal with the principle of forum non conveniens. He explained that this is the principle in which— despite the existence of a real and substantial connection, and jurisdiction— the court will exercise its discretion and decline to hear a matter on the basis that another forum is more appropriate.

The onus to raise this principle lies with the parties disputing jurisdiction—they bear the burden of demonstrating that an alternative forum should be preferred and considered to be more appropriate. LeBel J. explained that “the normal state of affairs is that jurisdiction should be exercised once it is properly assumed” (at para. 109), and that determining the appropriate forum is not a “matter of flipping a coin” (at para. 109). Instead, the court should exercise its discretion to decline to hear a matter based on a conclusion that another forum “is in a better position to dispose fairly and efficiently of the litigation”.

LeBel J. then went on to apply the above principles to the facts of Van Breeda, and agreed with the lower courts that a real and substantial connection existed, and that the lower courts did not err in exercising their discretion by declining to stay the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens.

In sum, the Van Breda trilogy provides important guidance as to when Canadian courts will assume jurisdiction over a matter based on the real and substantial connection test. By relying on a list of objective presumptive factors, it appears as if the Supreme Court of Canada is trying to signal that the question of jurisdiction should be based on an objective determination. In addition, the Court went on to provide important guidance to as to when Canadian courts will exercise their discretion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline to hear a matter despite the existence of a real and substantial connection. The Court’s emphasis that the normal state of affairs is for jurisdiction to be exercised once it exists, would suggest a more restrictive exercise of discretion- focusing more on considerations of fairness and efficiency- and not simply on the fact that other forums exist in other jurisdictions.

Written by:

Field Law
Contact
more
less

Field Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.