CHOICE OF LAW – 2003 Which Court has

CHOICE OF LAW – 2003
Which Court has Jurisdiction?
By
Patricia Lawson
613-231-8290
[email protected]
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
The Law of Ontario
1 - 11
The Law of Quebec
12 - 16
Practical Tips
17
The Relevant Factors as set out in Muscutt
18 - 19
Summary of Ontario Court of Appeal Cases
20 – 25
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Due to the close proximity of the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, and the number
of people who reside in one jurisdiction but work, carry on business or visit in the
other jurisdiction on a frequent basis, those of us who practice law in this area
are often faced with files that have interprovincial questions. We may also have
cases in which international conflicts of law rules must be examined, especially
personal injury or contract cases.
In this seminar, we will deal with the question of whether a court, in Ontario or in
Quebec, will assume jurisdiction over a matter that has inter-provincial or
international aspects, and how courts interpret the forum non conveniens rules
and case law. We will also provide some practical tips on managing a “choice of
law” file.
In our examination of the law of Ontario, we have emphasized tort actions, that
is a case where a resident of Ontario has suffered injuries in another province or
another country, and then seeks to proceed before the court of Ontario. Often,
these cases involve automobile accidents. Thanks to the “no-fault” regime in
place in Quebec, automobile accidents are no longer litigated, and we have
emphasized contract cases in our Quebec analysis. The same criteria would apply
to delict cases in Quebec, however.
THE LAW OF ONTARIO
We are fortunate to have six recent decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario
which deal with interprovincial and international tort actions.
Five of these decisions were rendered at the same time, after a joint hearing
before Justices Sharpe, Rosenberg and Feldman. Four of the decisions involved
international fact situations, and one was an interprovincial case. A summary of
each of these cases is found at the end of this paper.
The case which sets out the test to be applied in determining the choice of law is
Muscutt and Johnston v. Courcelles, Simpson, Ducharme-Gullins and Guardian
Ambulance (Ontario Court of Appeal, Docket no. C35934, decision on merits
rendered May 29, 2002). This is the pivotal case in the choice of law field in
Ontario, and I therefore will discuss that decision in depth. This decision sets out
the test to be followed when assessing whether a court will assume jurisdiction
against an out-of-province defendant on the basis of damage sustained in Ontario
as a result of a tort committed elsewhere.
Muscutt provides an excellent overview of the development of the rules on
conflict of laws and forum non conviens in Canada. Rather than attempt to
reinvent the wheel, I am including a summary of that overview, as it is helpful in
understanding the recent decisions.
FACTS IN MUSCUTT
On November 12, 1999, the Plaintiff, Chris Muscutt, was a passenger in a vehicle
owned by the defendant Simpson and driven by the defendant
Ducharme-Gullins, which was involved in an accident in Cochrane, Alberta. The
vehicle was struck by an ambulance driven by the defendant Courcelles and
owned by the defendant Guardian Ambulance. Mr. Muscutt suffered a serious
spinal process fracture.
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Mr. Muscutt had moved to Alberta from Ontario three weeks prior to the accident.
He underwent treatment initially in Alberta, then returned to live with his mother
in London, Ontario. He received extensive on-going medical care in Ontario. All
of the defendants were residents of Alberta at the time of the accident.
Mr. Muscutt brought the action in Ontario, claiming damages for pain and
suffering, loss of income and loss of business opportunity. His statement of claim
was served on the defendants in Alberta without leave pursuant to Rule 17.02(h).
The defendants Simpson and Ducharme-Gullins moved pursuant to Rule 17.06
and s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C43, to set aside service
and stay the action. They also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule
17.02(h), arguing it was ultra vires the province because of its extra-territorial
effect.
ISSUES
This appeal raised three issues.
Briefly, those issues and the decisions of the
Court of Appeal are:
1. Is Rule 17.02(h) ultra vires the province?
The Court of Appeal determined that Rule 17.02(h) is intra vires the
province. It is procedural in nature and does not determine jurisdiction. Rule
17.02 is a rule that allows for service of proceedings outside of the province, and
reads in part as follows:
“A party to a proceeding may, without a court order, be served
outside Ontario with an originating process or notice of a
reference where the proceeding against the party consists of a
claim or claims, (…) (h) in respect of damage sustained in
Ontario arising from tort, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty or breach of confidence, wherever committed
(…)”
The Court of Appeal found that the fact that service is valid does not mean that
the court can automatically assume jurisdiction or that the question of forum non
conveniens will not be investigated. Rather, even if service is validated, the
defendant has several means for challenging the jurisdiction of the court on the
basis that the real and substantial connection test has not been met. The Court
of Appeal found that Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R.
1077 and Hunt v. T&N plc., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289 impose constitutional limits on
the assumption of jurisdiction by a court against extra-territorial defendants, and
that the procedural scheme adequately allows for jurisdictional challenges to
ensure that these limits are respected. The Court includes in this procedural
scheme:
•
•
•
Rule 17.06(1), which allows a defendant to move to have the service set
aside or the proceeding stayed if the Court is satisfied that Ontario is not a
convenient forum for the hearing of the proceedings;
106 Courts of Justice Act, which provides that a court may stay any
proceeding in the court on such terms as are considered just;
Rule 21.01(3)(a), whereby a defendant may move before a judge to have an
action stayed or dismissed on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action).
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
2. Did the motions court judge err in finding that the Ontario Superior
Court could assume jurisdiction against the out-of-province defendants?
The Court of Appeal found that a fair weighing of the factors outlined
clearly favours the Court assuming jurisdiction in this case. It confirms the
finding of the motions court judge that the real and substantial connection test
has been met.
3. Did the motions court judge err in refusing to exercise his discretion
to decline jurisdiction on the ground that Ontario is not the forum
conveniens?
The motions court judge properly took into account the factors relevant to
this case, including the location of the parties, the location of key witnesses and
evidence, and the applicable law. On the basis of these factors, the motions
court judge was entitled to conclude that Ontario is the most convenient forum
for the action.
ANALYSIS
According to the Court of Appeal, this conflict of law question emerges from a
rapidly evolving area of law. Until the early 1990s, this area was governed by a
set of rigid common law rules that developed in England in the 19th century. The
traditional approach was concerned with a state’s interference with the territorial
sovereignty of another state. Until 1975 in Ontario, the plaintiff was required to
obtain leave of the court by ex parte motion before serving process outside the
jurisdiction. In tort cases, judicial interpretation favoured a strict “place of
acting” theory that forced domestic plaintiffs to sue foreign tortfeasors elsewhere.
However, the decisions in Morguard Investments Limited v. De Savoye, [1990] 3
S.C.R. 1077 and Hunt v. T&N plc., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289 rewrote the law of
jurisdiction and enforcement. The Supreme Court held that the principles of
“order and fairness” require limits on the reach of provincial jurisdiction against
out-of-province defendants and that jurisdiction can only be asserted against an
out-of-province defendant on the basis of a “real and substantial connection”.
However, the Court also held that the courts of one province must give “full faith
and credit” to the judgments of the courts of a sister province where the real and
substantial connection test is satisfied.
In Tolofson vs. Jenson; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) vs. Gagnon, [1994] 3
S.C.R. 1022, the Supreme Court of Canada introduced the rule that tort cases
should be governed by the law of the place where the tort was committed.
In Amchem Products Inc. vs. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board),
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 897, the Supreme Court of Canada elaborated the doctrine of
forum non conveniens, the discretionary power of the courts to decline to
exercise jurisdiction where the case is more appropriately dealt with in another
jurisdiction.
•
ASSUMED JURISDICTION
The appeal in Muscutt raised the issue of assumed jurisdiction. The Court found
that while assumed jurisdiction is initiated by service of the court’s process out of
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
the jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 17.02, the rule does not, however, confer
jurisdiction over a matter upon a court absolutely.
Rather, rule 17.02(h)
represents a legislative response to the type of problem confronted by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Moran vs. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1
S.C.R. 393, a product liability case. At pages 408-9, the Court held:
“Where a foreign defendant carelessly manufactures a product
in a foreign jurisdiction which enters into the normal channels
of trade and he knows or ought to have known that as a result
of its carelessness a consumer may well be injured and it is
reasonably foreseeable that the product would be used or
consumed where the plaintiff used or consumed it, then the
forum in which the plaintiff suffered damage is entitled to
exercise judicial jurisdiction over that foreign defendant.”
This “damage sustained” rule has been given a generous and liberal
interpretation.
However, it is now subject to the principles articulated in
Morguard regarding the need for a real and substantial connection and the need
for order, fairness and jurisdictional restraint. The damage sustained rule led to
cases where a tort can be committed elsewhere, with the victim suffering
damages in Ontario, allowing the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction.
Prior to Morguard, an extra-provincial judgment was recognized and enforced
only if the defendant was physically present within the rendering jurisdiction
when the action was commenced, or if the defendant had consented to the
jurisdiction.
Morguard establishes that the proper exercise of jurisdiction
depends upon two principles:
1.
A need for “order and fairness” and “jurisdictional restraint”;
2.
A “real and substantial connection”.
Morguard did not deal explicitly with constitutional limits on the reach of
provincial laws.
In Hunt, the court gave the principles from Morguard
constitutional force, holding that these principles are “constitutional imperatives”
that apply to the legislature as well as the court. It held that provinces are
required to “respect the minimum standards of order and fairness addressed in
Morguard” and that courts are required, by constitutional restraints, to assume
jurisdiction only where there are real and substantial connections to that place.
At page 325 in Hunt, the court held:
“The exact limits of what constitutes a reasonable assumption
of jurisdiction were not defined [in Morguard], and I add that
no test can perhaps ever be rigidly applied; no court has ever
been able to anticipate all of these.”
The Court also held that the real and substantial connection test “was not meant
to be a rigid test, but was simply intended to capture the idea that there must be
some limits on the claims to jurisdiction” and that “the assumption of and the
discretion not to exercise jurisdiction must ultimately be guided by the
requirements of order and fairness, not a mechanical counting of contacts or
connections”.
The Court looked at the relationship between assumed jurisdiction and recognition
and enforcement. In other words, where a court has assumed jurisdiction and
rendered a judgment against the defendant, the court that is asked to enforce
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
that judgment, in accordance with the principles of order and fairness, must look
at the contacts that jurisdiction may have to the defendant or the subject matter.
There must be some limits to the exercise of jurisdiction against persons outside
the province if the courts of one province are to be expected to give effect to
judgments given in another province. In Tolofson, the Supreme Court reaffirmed
that the same test and the same need for restraint applied to both assumed
jurisdiction and jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement purposes.
•
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSUMED JURISDICTION AND FORUM
NON CONVENIENS:
Where more than one forum is capable of assuming jurisdiction, the most
appropriate forum is determined through the forum non conveniens
doctrine, which allows a court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground
that there is another forum more appropriate to entertain the action.
The courts have developed a list of several factors that may be considered in
determining the most appropriate forum for the action, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The location of the majority of the parties;
The location of key witnesses and evidence;
Contractual provisions that specify applicable law or accord jurisdiction;
The avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings;
The applicable law and its weight in comparison to the factual questions to be
decided;
Geographical factors suggesting the natural forum;
Whether declining jurisdiction would deprive the plaintiff of a legitimate
juridical advantage available in the domestic court.
Thus, it is a two-step test. Firstly, the court determines if there is a real and
substantial connection. If not, then the analysis ends here and the court is
prevented from unduly entering into matters in which the Court has little interest.
Secondly, where the real and substantial connection test has been met, a court
may still refuse to exercise jurisdiction where, under the rule elaborated in
Amchem, there is a more convenient or appropriate forum elsewhere. This was
the finding in Tolofson.
While the real and substantial connection test is a legal rule, the forum non
conveniens test is discretionary. In Lemmex vs. Bernard (2000), 51 O.R. (3d)
164 at 172, the divisional court refers to the real and substantial connection test
as “jurisdiction simpliciter” and differentiates that from “forum non conveniens”.
It has also been stated that the real and substantial connection test requires only
a real and substantial connection, not the most real and substantial connection.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES
Issue 1:
Is Rule 17.02(h) ultra vires the province?
No. As stated above, at page 2, the Court found that the Rule is procedural in
nature and that it does not by itself confer jurisdiction. A party who is served in
accordance with Rule 17.02(h) has several means of challenging the jurisdiction of
the court.
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Issue 2:
Did the motions court judge err in finding that the Ontario Superior Court
could assume jurisdiction against the out-of-province defendants?
The Court analyses the case law by considering two approaches:
a.
The “personal subjection” approach, under which jurisdiction is legitimate if
the defendant regularly lived or carried on business in the province, or if
the defendant voluntarily did something that related to the province so as
to make it reasonable to contemplate that he or she might be sued in the
province.
b.
The “administration of justice” approach, which is broader and pursuant to
which the forum need only meet a minimum standard of suitability, under
which it must be fair for the case to be heard in the province because the
province is a “reasonable place for the action to take place”.
A.
The personal subjection approach
The personal subjection approach has been followed in the United States and in
several Canadian decisions at the trial level.
The Court of Appeal prefers the broader administration of justice approach, basing
its decision on the weight of post-Morguard appellate authority which holds that a
real and substantial connection may be found on a broader basis than personal
subjection. Several cases found that a real and substantial connection could be
based on a connection either with the defendant or with the subject matter of the
litigation, and these cases are canvassed in the Court of Appeal decision. The
Court refers to a Quebec Court of Appeal case which implicitly rejected a personal
subjection approach, Spar Aerospace Ltd. c. American Mobile Satellite Corp.,
[2000] J.Q. no 1717 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 397.
The Court of Appeal finds that Canadian courts should not adopt a personal
subjection approach that requires minimum contact between the defendant and
the forum. It holds that the real and substantial connection test should be
interpreted as requiring a connection either between the forum and the defendant
or between the forum and the subject matter of the action. The defendant’s
connection with the forum should not be determinative in the choice of forum, but
should be a relevant factor to be weighed together with other factors.
B. The relevant factors under the administration of justice approach:
It is apparent from Morguard, Hunt and subsequent case law that it is not possible
to reduce the real and substantial connection test to a fixed formula. The court
must look at the facts of each case and remain flexible. But clarity and certainty
are also important. Therefore, the court identifies the factors emerging from the
case law that are relevant in assessing whether a court should assume jurisdiction
against an out-of-province defendant on the basis of damage sustained in Ontario
as a result of a tort committed elsewhere. No one factor is determinative. The
court found that when weighing all of the relevant factors in the Muscutt case, it
should assume jurisdiction. The eight factors are:
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
1. A connection between the forum and the plaintiff’s claim;
2. The connection between the forum and the defendant;
3. Unfairness to the defendant in assuming jurisdiction;
4. Unfairness to the plaintiff in not assuming jurisdiction;
5. The involvement of other parties to the suit;
6. The court’s willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial
judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis;
7. Whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature;
8. Comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement
prevailing elsewhere.
The Court of Appeal analyzed each factor and applied it to the facts in the Muscutt
case. You will see that the court then applied the same factors to each of the
other four cases decided on the same day, as summarized in the attached Case
Summaries at pages 20 to 25.
1.
A connection between the forum and the plaintiff’s claim
The forum has an interest in protecting the legal rights of its residents and
affording injured plaintiffs generous access for litigating claims against tort
feasors. In this case, the plaintiff required extensive medical attention in Ontario.
His claim is, inter alia, for pain and suffering in Ontario. These damages represent
a significant connection with Ontario.
2.
The connection between the forum and the defendant
The conduct of a defendant amounting to personal subjection provides a
strong basis for assumed jurisdiction, but such conduct is not necessary in all
cases. If conduct by the defendant makes litigation in the forum a foreseeable
risk, this is also a basis for assumed jurisdiction. In this case, the facts did not
show either personal subjection or conduct that makes litigation in the forum a
foreseeable risk.
Nonetheless, the court said that other factors must be
considered.
3.
Unfairness to the defendant in assuming jurisdiction
The consideration of the defendant’s position should not end with an
enquiry as to acts or conduct that would render the defendant subject to the
jurisdiction. The principles of order and fairness require further consideration.
Some activities, by their very nature, involve a sufficient risk of harm to
extra-provincial parties that any unfairness in assuming jurisdiction is mitigated or
eliminated. In this case, the assumption of jurisdiction would not result in any
significant unfairness to the defendants. The court considers that driving an
automobile involves an inherent risk of harm to extra-provincial parties, and it
looks at mandatory motor vehicle insurance requirements across Canada, the
standard form Power of Attorney and Undertaking and the fact that the burden of
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
defending the suit will fall on the defendants’ insurer and not on the defendants
themselves.
4.
Unfairness to the plaintiff in not assuming jurisdiction
The principles of order and fairness must also be considered in relation to
the plaintiff. The interest of the plaintiff and defendant must be balanced. In this
case, it would be inconvenient for the plaintiff to litigate in Alberta, especially
given his injuries.
5.
The involvement of other parties to the suit
This bears upon the real and substantial connection test. The twin goals of
avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and avoiding the risk of inconsistent results
are relevant considerations. Where the core of the action involves domestic
defendants, that is Canadian defendants, the case for assuming jurisdiction is
strong. Where the core of the action involves other foreign defendants, courts
should be more wary of assuming jurisdiction simply because there is a claim
against a domestic defendant. In this case, this factor is not a significant one.
6.
The court’s willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial
judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis
The court must consider whether it would recognize and enforce an extraprovincial judgment against a domestic defendant rendered on the same
jurisdictional basis, whether pursuant to common law principles or any applicable
legislation. Where a court would not be willing to recognize and enforce an extraprovincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdiction basis, the court cannot
assume jurisdiction, because the real and substantial connection test has not been
met. The spirit of Morguard and Hunt favours recognition and enforcement of the
judgments of the courts of sister provinces where jurisdiction has been assumed
on the basis that serious damages have been suffered within the province as a
result of a motor vehicle accident in another province.
7.
Whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature
The decisions in Morguard, Tolofson and Hunt suggest that the assumption
of jurisdiction is more easily justified in interprovincial cases than in international
cases. It is interesting that La Forest J. rendered a decision in all three cases on
behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The fact that this is an interprovincial case clearly weighs in favour of assuming
jurisdiction.
8.
Comity and the standards of
enforcement prevailing elsewhere
jurisdiction,
recognition
and
Comity is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the
legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation. One aspect is that in
fashioning jurisdictional rules, a court should consider the standards of
jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement that prevail elsewhere.
In
interprovincial cases, this consideration is unnecessary. However, in international
cases, it may be helpful to consider international standards, particularly the rules
governing assumed jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments
in the location in which the defendant is situated. Reference must be had to any
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
agreements to which Canada is a party and to whether or not service out of the
jurisdiction is permitted for claims where damage was suffered in the jurisdiction.
It should be noted that the United States only assumes jurisdiction for damage
sustained within the jurisdiction in certain limited circumstances. The minimum
contacts doctrine in the United States requires an act or conduct on the part of the
defendant that amounts to personal subjection to the jurisdiction.
As this is an interprovincial case, this factor is not applicable.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal finds that the real and substantial connection test has been
met. Then, it considers whether or not Ontario is the forum conveniens.
Issue 3:
Did the motions court judge err in refusing to exercise his discretion to
decline jurisdiction on the ground that Ontario is not the forum
conveniens?
The Court of Appeal found that the motions court judge properly took into account
the factors relevant to this case, including the location of the parties, the location
of key witnesses and evidence, and the applicable law. On the basis of these
factors, the motions court judge was entitled to conclude that Ontario is the most
convenient forum for the action.
Comment
Attached please find a Case Summary of the other five recent Court of Appeal
decisions. You will see that four of these decisions followed the criteria set out in
Muscutt. In a further decision, the Court did not grant costs in four of the cases,
and reserved the question of costs to the trial judge in the fifth case (Muscutt, the
only case where Ontario can assume jurisdiction).
The other case did not concern jurisdiction, as the defendant had attorned to the
jurisdiction of Ontario, but does deal with choice of law questions. That case is
Somers v. Fournier and Liberty Mutual Company, a decision by Justices Cronk,
Finlayson and Carthy of June 27, 2002. The Court of Appeal decided that the
substantive law of New York applies to the action, since the accident occurred in
New York State. This is in keeping with Tolofson v. Jensen. However, it found
that the Ontario law concerning costs and the “cap” on non-pecuniary general
damages, as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada trilogy are matters of
procedure to which Ontario law applies. Furthermore, pre-judgment interest was
held to be a matter of the substantive law of Ontario, and was not allowed in this
case, since the court will look to the substantive law of New York, where prejudgment interest is not allowed. This may be significant for the plaintiff, since
the accident occurred in 1990.
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
THE LAW OF QUÉBEC
Les articles 3134 à 3154 du Code civil du Québec sont les dispositions principales
qui déterminent si les Cours du Québec ont compétence pour entendre un litige et
qui traitent de la question de forum non conveniens. Nous vous suggérons de
revoir ces articles attentivement avant de commencer votre étude d’un dossier
dans laquelle vous êtes appeler à rendre une opinion sur une question de conflit
de lois.
La règle de base se trouve à l’article 3134 :
« En l’absence de disposition particulière, les autorités du
Québec sont compétentes lorsque le défendeur a son domicile
au Québec. »
L’exception à la règle se trouve à l’article 3135 :
« Bien qu’elle soit compétente pour connaître d’un litige, une
autorité du Québec peut, exceptionnellement et à la demande
d’une partie, décliner cette compétence si elle estime que les
autorités d’un autre État sont mieux à même de trancher le
litige. »
Donc, nous voyons que le législateur a codifié la règle de forum non conveniens.
Quant aux actions personnelles à caractère patrimonial, nous regardons les
critères énoncés sous l’article 3148 du Code civil du Québec :
« Art. 3148.
Dans les actions personnelles à caractère
patrimonial, les autorités québécoises sont compétentes dans
les cas suivants :
1o Le défendeur a son domicile ou sa résidence au Québec;
2o Le défendeur est une personne morale qui n’est pas
domiciliée au Québec mais y a un établissement et la
contestation est relative à son activité au Québec;
3o Une faute a été commise au Québec, un préjudice y a été
subi, un fait dommageable s’y est produit ou l’une des
obligations découlant d’un contrat devait y être exécutée;
4o Les parties, par convention, leur ont soumis les litiges nés
ou à naître entre elles à l’occasion d’un rapport de droit
déterminé;
5o Le défendeur a reconnu leur compétence.
Cependant, les autorités québécoises ne sont pas compétentes
lorsque les parties ont choisi, par convention, de soumettre les
litiges nés ou à naître entre elles, à propos d’un rapport
juridique déterminé, à une autorité étrangère ou à un arbitre, à
moins que le défendeur n’ait reconnu la compétence des
autorités québécoises. »
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Les décisions fondamentales dans ce domaine sont, nécessairement, les décisions
de la Cour suprême du Canada dans les causes Morguard, Tolofson, Hunt et
Amchem. L’importance de ces décisions fait partie de l’analyse par la Cour
d’appel de l’Ontario dans Muscutt, et nous vous invitons de consulter la première
partie de l’analyse de la cause Muscutt ci-haut.
Il existe une multitude de décisions sur l’interprétation de ces articles du CCQ.
Nous vous invitons à consulter la décision de Monsieur le Juge André Rochon
dans l’affaire H. L. Boulton & Co. S. A. C. c. Banque Royale du Canada
[1995] R.J.Q. 213, J.E. 95-152, une décision fondamentale dans ce domaine.
Dans cette cause, la Cour supérieure du district de Montréal a accueilli une
requête pour exception déclinatoire faite par la banque défenderesse, qui avait
son siège social à Montréal. La demanderesse est une compagnie vénézuélienne.
Un tiers, qui a sa place d’affaires en Colombie-Britannique, a conclu un contrat
avec la demanderesse qu’on lui transfère le bénéfice d’une lettre de crédit
délivrée au tiers par une banque située à Hong Kong. L’acceptation du transfert
de la lettre de crédit s’est faite à Vancouver, de même que la présentation des
documents requis aux termes de la lettre de crédit. La banque défenderesse a
confirmé à Vancouver la lettre de crédit délivrée à l’origine de Hong Kong. Le
paiement devait aussi avoir lieu à Vancouver, où la demanderesse intimée a une
place d’affaires. L’ensemble des témoins, tant de la banque défenderesse que du
tiers, résident en Colombie-Britannique.
Monsieur le Juge Rochon note qu’il est établi que la Cour suprême de la
Colombie-Britannique a compétence pour entendre un litige comme celui à
l’étude. Donc, il est important à noter que les avocats, probablement de la
banque défenderesse, ont fait la preuve de la loi de la Colombie-Britannique.
La banque défenderesse demande à la Cour de décliner compétence en vertu de
l’article 3135 du Code civil du Québec.
Monsieur le Juge André Rochon a pris en considération les critères utilisés en
common law, notamment dans les autres provinces canadiennes, c’est-à-dire que
la Cour doit décliner compétence si elle estime que les autorités d’un autre état
sont mieux à même de trancher le litige. Pour ce faire, elle doit évaluer les liens
réels et substantiels qui existent entre l’action et le tribunal, la disponibilité des
témoins, la loi applicable au litige et le degré de rattachement du litige avec
l’autorité appelée à le trancher.
Selon Monsieur le Juge Rochon, il n’existe aucun motif pour ne pas appliquer au
Québec des critères semblables à ceux qui prévalent dans les autres provinces
canadiennes, de façon à servir les intérêts des justiciables au Canada. Dans
cette cause, le seul et unique point de rattachement avec la province du Québec
est le siège social de la défenderesse requérante. Monsieur le Juge Rochon croit
que ceci constitue un facteur très secondaire puisqu’elle fait affaire partout au
Canada.
Le domicile du défendeur est généralement le fondement de la
compétence du tribunal en droit privé intérieur, mais une telle règle n’existe pas
en droit international privé.
Il a pris en considération le fait que la convention internationale qui régit les
parties, selon leur contrat, prévoit que c’est le droit intérieur du lieu de la
convention et du paiement qui doit servir à l’application des règles prévues à
cette convention, soit, en l’espèce, le droit en vigueur en Colombie-Britannique.
De plus, en droit international privé, en matière de lettre de crédit, c’est l’endroit
où la lettre de crédit est payable qui constitue le situs.
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Donc, la Cour supérieure du Québec a décliné compétence, car le Québec n’est
pas le forum conveniens.
Amchem Products Inc. c. Colombie-Britannique (Workers’ Compensation
Board), [1993] 1 R.C.S. 897
Quoiqu’il ne l’a pas cité directement dans le texte de son jugement, le jugement
de la Cour suprême du Canada dans Amchem Products Inc. c. ColombieBritannique (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 R.C.S. 897 est cité à la fin
du jugement de Monsieur Juge Rochon. Amchem est l’un des jugements des plus
importants dans ce domaine au Québec et au Canada.
Les faits, brièvement, sont les suivants: 194 personnes réclament des dommages
d’une compagnie domiciliée dans l’état de Texas car elles prétendent avoir subi
un préjudice corporel à la suite de l’expostion à l’amiante ou bien elles sont des
personnes à charge de personnes décédées ayant souffert d’amiantose. La
plupart des demandeurs étaient des résidents de la Colombie-Britannique quand
ils ont subi des dommages.La Workers’ Compensation Board de la ColomieBritannique est subrogée dans les droits de la plupart de ces appelants. Aucun
des intimées n’a de lien avec la Colombie Britannique. Les demandeurs ont
entamé action en Texas en 1988. Le tribunal texan s’est déclaré compétent.
Par la suite, les sociétés d’amiante ont demandé avec succès à la Cour suprême
de la Colomie-Britannique des injonctions tendant à empêcher la poursuite des
instances introduites par les appelants au Texas.
Les injonctions ont été
confirmées en appel.
La Cour Suprême du Canada a accueilli l’appel et a décidé que la Texas est le
forum approprié.
Selon la Cour Suprême, un tribunal ne doit admettre une demande d’injonction
contre les pousuites que lorsqu’une grave injustice résultera de l’omission par un
tribunal étranger de se récuser en application du critère du forum non
conveniens.
Le critère du forum non conveniens est l’existence d’un autre
tribunal, plus comode et plus approprié pour la poursuite de l’action et pour la
réalisation des fins de la justice. La perte d’un avantage juridique n’est qu’un
facteur parmi ceux dont la cour tient compte pour déterminer le tribunal
approprié, et n’est pas une condition distincte à considérer.Le tribunal doit
rechercher les facteurs de rattachement, c’est à dire les facteurs d’ordre pratique
ou pécuniaire (tels que la disponibilité des témoins) et des facteurs tels que la loi
applicable à l’opération en cause et le lieu de résidence des parties ou le siège de
leur activité. La Cour Suprême fait reférence aux causes telles Spiliada Maritime
Corp c. Cansulex Ltd., [1987] A.C. 460 et de Dampierre c. de Dampierre,[1987]
2 W.L.R. 1006 (H.L.). De plus, le fait qu’un tribunal étranger s’est déclaré
compétent dans des circonstances qui sont compatibles avec l’application des
principes conçus pour déterminer le tribunal le plus approprié est un facteur
important qui milite contre la demande d’injonction.
Une autre décision qui est intéressante est celle de Amiel Distributions Ltd. c.
Amana Company L. P., une décision de la Cour d’appel du Québec en date du
22 juillet 2002. C’est une décision écrite par Madame la Juge Otis à laquelle
souscrive Madame la Juge Marie Deschamps (maintenant de la Cour suprême du
Canada) et Monsieur le Juge François Pelletier. Encore une fois, ce sont les
questions contractuelles qui font l’objet de la cause. La demanderesse est une
compagnie québécoise qui a transigé avec la défenderesse, une compagnie
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
américaine, pendant plusieurs années. Quand la défenderesse a décidé de se
prévaloir d’une clause de leur contrat pour mettre fin au contrat, deux actions ont
été entamées, l’une au Québec et l’autre aux États-Unis. La décision de la Cour
d’appel est conforme aux articles du Code civil du Québec, et vous remarqueriez
l’importance de ces articles dans la décision. La Cour d’appel n’ a pas vu la
nécessité d’aller beaucoup plus loin que le CCQ, car la réponse aux questions en
litige se trouve parmi ces articles. Malgré le fait qu’une action sur compte était
déjà intentée aux États-Unis, la Cour a décidé que la Cour du Québec est
compétente pour entendre une action en dommages-intérêts fondée sur la
résiliation abusive du contrat, et ce, en vertu de la législaton du Québec. La Cour
refuse d’émettre une ordonnance de sursis, car les deux recours ne reposent pas
sur le même fondement, ils ne visent pas le même objet et ils ne seront pas
décidés en vertu des mêmes règles de droit.
Finalement, nous vous invitons à lire le jugement dans la cause Nationale du
Canada, compagnie d’assurance-vie c. Travailleurs unis des transports,
J.E. 2002-1383, une décision du Juge Jean-François de Grandpré daté du
12 juillet 2002. Le tribunal était saisi de deux exceptions déclinatoires visant à
faire rejeter l’action et déclarer que la cour supérieure du Québec, n’est pas le
forum approprié pour statuer sur l’action de la demanderesse. Dans sa décision,
Monsieur le Juge de Grandpré examine l’article 3135 du Code civil et il cite le
jugement du Juge Pidgeon, alors qu’il était à la Cour d’appel, dans Oppenheim
forfait GMBH c. Lexus Maritime, REJB 1998-07102 (C.A.) :
« Le juge saisi d’un moyen déclinatoire doit considérer plusieurs
facteurs afin de déterminer s’il est en présence d’une situation
exceptionnelle. Au cours des dernières années, les tribunaux
ont précisé le sens et la portée de l’article 3135 C.c.Q. Les
critères à considérer comprennent, entre autres :
1. Le lieu de résidence des parties et des témoins ordinaires et
experts;
2. La situation des éléments de preuve;
3. Le lieu de formation et d’exécution du contrat qui donne lieu
à la demande;
4. L’existence et le contenu d’une autre action intenté à
l’étranger et le progrès déjà effectué dans la poursuite de
cette action;
5. La situation des biens appartenant au défendeur;
6. La loi applicable au litige;
7. L’avantage dont jouit la demanderesse dans le for choisi;
8. L’intérêt de la justice;
9. L’intérêt des deux parties;
10. La nécessité éventuelle d’une procédure en exemplification
à l’étranger.
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Aucun de ces critères n’est déterminant en soi, il faut plutôt les
évaluer globalement et garder à l’esprit que le résultat de leur
application doit désigner de façon claire un forum unique.
Donc, s’il ne se dégage pas une impression nette tendant vers
un seul et même forum étranger, le tribunal devrait alors
refuser de décliner compétence particulièrement lorsque les
facteurs de rattachement sont contestables. »
Monsieur le Juge de Grandpré a analysé ces dix critères, et a conclu que la Cour
supérieure du Québec est toute aussi apte à trancher le litige que la Cour
supérieure de l’Ontario. Donc, les deux requêtes ont été rejetées.
Conclusion
Donc, nous avons discuté des causes fondamentales dans ce domaine, et de
quelques causes récentes qui ont traité des principes applicables à ce domaine de
droit. Dans chaque cas particulier, il faut lire attentivement les articles du Code
civil du Québec et suivre les étapes directives énoncées à la page 17.
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
PRACTICAL TIPS
From a practical point of view, in my experience the most efficient way to deal
with a file that has aspects of law from different jurisdiction is as follows:
1.
Gather all of the facts and details concerning the connection to the various
jurisdictions.
2.
Where applicable, obtain a copy of the legislation in each of the
jurisdictions, that applies to the contract or tort claim in your file. For
instance, if it is an automobile accident and you are concerned with where
a victim can claim accident benefits, obtain a copy of the Insurance Act
and regulations for the jurisdiction where the victim is a resident, where
the accident occurred, and for the jurisdiction of the plate of the vehicle if
it is different from the other two. Also verify if there are any agreements
between the two provinces or nations.
3.
Review the case law or jurisprudence in each of the jurisdictions. There
may be a leading case, such as what we have in Ontario and Québec, with
a list of criteria that a court will consider in determining whether or not the
court has jurisdiction. Ask your client for authorization to consult an
expert in that jurisdiction. You cannot be expected to know the law of
every province in Canada, and you certainly cannot be expected to know
the law of other countries.
4.
Make a list or table of the facts in your file that connect the case to each
jurisdiction. The list should conform to the factors or criteria set out in
Muscutt in Ontario and Oppenheim in Quebec.
5.
Make a list of what your heads of damages will be, and add costs,
prejudgement interest and post judgement interest to that list. Determine
whether each jurisdiction will grant to your client each of the heads of
damages. You will also want to consider whether there is a cap or limit to
the amount of damages granted in each jurisdiction, whether there is a
deductible and how the damages are calculated. There may be a tactical
advantage to starting an action in one or the other jurisdiction. If you are
acting for the defence, it may be in your client’s interest to make a motion
to have the court determine that it does not have jurisdiction or that this
is not the most convenient forum. Each case must be analyzed carefully.
Do not forget such questions as where your witnesses are located, what costs will
be incurred in each jurisdiction, how exemplification of judgment is carried out
(i.e. do you have to recommence the action).
THE RELEVANT FACTORS UNDER THE BROADER APPROACH, AS SET OUT
IN MUSCUTT AND FOLLOWED IN LEMMEX, GAJRAJ, LEUFKENS AND
SINCLAIR
The Ontario Court of Appeal has identified the factors emerging from the case law
that are relevant in assessing whether a court should assume jurisdiction against
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
an out-of-province defendant on the basis of damage sustained in Ontario as a
result of a tort committed elsewhere. No factor is determinative. The factors are:
1. A connection between the forum and the plaintiff’s claim
The forum has an interest in protecting the legal rights of its residents and
affording injured plaintiffs generous access for litigating claims against tort
feasors.
2. The connection between the forum and the defendant
The conduct of a defendant amounting to personal subjection provides a
strong basis for assumed jurisdiction, but such conduct is not necessary in all
cases. If conduct by the defendant makes litigation in the forum a foreseeable
risk, this is also a basis for assumed jurisdiction.
3. Unfairness to the defendant in assuming jurisdiction
The consideration of the defendant’s position should not end with an
enquiry as to acts or conduct that would render the defendant subject to the
jurisdiction. The principles of order and fairness require further consideration.
Some activities, by their very nature, involve a sufficient risk of harm to
extra-provincial parties that any unfairness in assuming jurisdiction is mitigated or
eliminated. In Muscutt, the court considered that driving an automobile involves
an inherent risk of harm to extra-provincial parties and looked at mandatory
motor vehicle insurance requirements across Canada, the standard form Power of
Attorney and Undertaking and the fact that the burden of defending the suit will
fall on the defendants’ insurer and not on the defendants themselves.
4. Unfairness to the plaintiff in not assuming jurisdiction
The principles of order and fairness must also be considered in relation to
the plaintiff. The interests of the plaintiff and defendant must be balanced.
5. The involvement of other parties to the suit
This bears upon the real and substantial connection test. The twin goals of
avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and avoiding the risk of inconsistent results
are relevant considerations. Where the core of the action involves domestic
defendants, that is Canadian defendants, the case for assuming jurisdiction is
strong. Where the core of the action involves other foreign defendants, courts
should be more wary of assuming jurisdiction simply because there is a claim
against a domestic defendant.
6. The court’s willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-provincial
judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis
The court must consider whether it would recognize and enforce an extraprovincial judgment against a domestic defendant rendered on the same
jurisdictional basis, whether pursuant to common law principles or any applicable
legislation. Where a court would not be willing to recognize and enforce an extraprovincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis, the court cannot
assume jurisdiction, because the real and substantial connection test has not been
met. The spirit of Morguard and Hunt favours recognition and enforcement of the
judgments of the courts of sister provinces where jurisdiction has been assumed
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
on the basis that serious damages have been suffered within the province as a
result of a motor vehicle accident in another province.
7. Whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature
The decisions in Morguard, Tolofson and Hunt suggest that the assumption
of jurisdiction is more easily justified in interprovincial cases than in international
cases. It is interesting that La Forest J. rendered the majority decision in all three
cases on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada.
8. Comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement
prevailing elsewhere
Comity is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the
legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation. One aspect is that in
fashioning jurisdictional rules, a court should consider the standards of
jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement that prevail elsewhere.
In
interprovincial cases, this consideration is unnecessary. However, in international
cases, it may be helpful to consider international standards, particularly the rules
governing assumed jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments
in the location in which the defendant is situated. Reference must be had to any
agreements to which Canada is a party and to whether or not service out of the
jurisdiction is permitted for claims where damage was suffered in the jurisdiction.
It should be noted that the United States only assumes jurisdiction for damage
sustained within the jurisdiction in certain limited circumstances. The minimum
contacts doctrine in the United States requires an act or conduct on the part of the
defendant that amounts to personal subjection to the jurisdiction.
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Muscutt v. Courcelles et al (2002) Ontario Court of Appeal
Decision of Sharpe J.A., with Rosenberg and Feldman JJ.A., concurring
FACTS:
CHOICE OF LAW:
CRITERIA APPLIED:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interprovincial case
Plaintiff resident of
Ontario
Injured in auto
accident in Alberta
Defendants all
residents of Alberta
Treatment in Alberta,
then in Ontario
Action commenced in
Ontario
Defendants move to
stay action, no “real
and substantial
connection” to
Ontario, not the most
convenient forum
Defendants also
move that R.
17.02(h) is ultra vires
the province
CHOICE OF LAW
•
•
Decision:
Rule
17.02(h) is intra vires
the province
After weighing all 8
factors, Ontario does
have a real and
substantial connection to
the litigation
Ontario is the most
convenient forum
DECISION:
ONTARIO CAN ASSUME
JURISDICTION
•
•
refers to Morguard, Hunt,
Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas
v. Gagnon, Amchem
Products
See Summary prepared
1 – Yes there is a relevant
connection between the
plaintiff claim and the
action;
2 – No relevant connection
between the forum and
defendant;
3 – Not unfair to the
defendant;
4 – Unfair to the plaintiff
is not assumed;
5 – No other parties;
6 – Interprovincial;
7 – Interprovincial;
8 – Comity not an issue.
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Lemmex v. Sunflight Holidays et al. (2002) Ontario Court of Appeal
Decision of Sharpe J.A., with Rosenberg and Feldman JJ.A., concurring
FACTS:
CHOICE OF LAW:
CRITERIA APPLIED:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
International case
Plaintiff resident of
Ontario
Cruise contract with
Sunflight Holidays
Inc. signed in
Ontario, Canadian co.
Injured in Grenada
Florida cruise liner
Grenada shore
excursion co.
Carbon monoxide
poisoning from car
exhaust, Grenada
taxi and driver
Medical treatment in
Ottawa
CHOICE OF LAW
•
•
Florida cruise company
attorned to Ontario
jurisdiction
Sunflight subject to
Ontario
Third parties Grenada
taxi driver and shore
excursion co. contest
Ontario jurisdiction
DECISION: ONTARIO
CANNOT ASSUME
JURSIDICTION
•
Applies the analysis in the
Muscutt case
Two part test: jurisdiction
simpliciter and forum non
conveniens
1) yes, plaintiff required
extensive medical
attention in Ontario and
claims for pain and
suffering in Ontario;
2) no personal subjection
or conduct by the
defendant that makes
litigation in the forum a
foreseeable risk;
3) yes, it would be unfair
to the defendant for
Ontario to assume
jurisdiction; this may
have been different if
the court knew whether
the third parties had
insurance coverage;
4) Inconvenient for the
plaintiff if the court not
assume jurisdiction, but
not unfair;
5) Core of the action is in
Grenada;
6) no, the Ontario court
would not be willing to
recognize and enforce
an extra-provincial
judgment from Grenada
rendered on the same
jurisdictional basis;
7) International case;
8) no information before
the court on comity
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Gajraj v. DeBernardo, Allstate Insurance, Manusami (2002) Ontario C.A.
Decision of Sharpe J. A., with Rosenberg and Feldman JJ.A., concurring
FACTS:
•
International case
•
Plaintiff resident of
Ontario
Accident in New York
State
Action for damages
for personal injuries
and FLA claims
DeBernardo and
Manusami are New
York residents
Allstate is Gajraj’s
insurer (under
insured motorist)
DeBernardo moved to
set aside service, a
stay of proceedings,
and to sever the
action against
Allstate
Manusami supported
DeBernardo
Allstate supported
the plaintiff
Motions Court:
Severed action,
stayed action against
DeBernardo and
Manusami
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CHOICE OF LAW
CHOICE OF LAW:
CRITERIA APPLIED:
•
•
Motions court judge:
two part test, jurisdiction
simpliciter and then
forum conveniens.
1) Medical treatment in
Ontario is a significant
connection;
HELD: No real and
substantial connection
test, not most
convenient forum
•
Applies the analysis in the
Muscutt case:
2) No relevant connection
between Defendant
and jurisdiction;
3) Unfair to defendant to
assume;
Court of Appeal:
ONTARIO COURT
CANNOT ASSUME
JURISDICTION
4) Inconvenient for
plaintiff but not unfair;
5) Allstate claims
secondary, core of
claim against New
York defendants;
6) No;
7) International;
8) N.Y. court would not
recognize or enforce
Ontario judgment in
this case.
•
Not consider forum non
conveniens issue.
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Leufkens v. Alba Tours International Inc., Swiss Travel Service, et als. (May
2002) Ontario Court of Appeal
Decision of Sharpe J.A., with Rosenberg and Feldman JJ.A., concurring
FACTS:
CHOICE OF LAW:
CRITERIA APPLIED:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
International case
Plaintiff residents of
Ontario
Purchased package to
Costa Rica from
Ontario companies
Ontario defendants
arranged with Swiss
Travel Service for
Costa Rica excursion
Plaintiff injured on
excursion
Hospital in Costa Rica
for 12 hours, then
sent home to Toronto
Swiss served in Costa
Rica (Rule 17.02(h))
Swiss moved to stay
the action for lack of
jurisdiction and for
forum non
conveniens
•
•
•
Motions court stayed
action against Swiss for
lack of jurisdiction and
for forum non
conveniens
Not reasonably
foreseeable that the
services provided in
Costa Rica would cause
an injury in Ontario
Costa Rican law applies
Key witnesses on liability
in Costa Rica
Court of Appeal: ONTARIO
COURT CANNOT ASSUME
JURISDICTION
The Muscutt factors were
applied:
1) Yes; resident of
Ontario and medical
attention in Ontario;
2) Swiss has no
connection with
Ontario;
3) Unfair to Swiss to
assume jurisdiction;
4) Inconvenient for
plaintiff but plaintiff
has no reasonable
expectation to sue
Costa Rican in
Ontario;
5) Only effective way to
avoid multiple
proceedings is to sue
in Costa Rica;
6) Ontario defendants
would expect Ontario
courts not to
recognize or enforce
similar extraprovincial judgment;
7) International therefore
assumption of
jurisdiction less
justifiable;
8) Costa Rican rules not
known, no evidence
Ontario judgment
would be enforceable
there.
CHOICE OF LAW
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Sinclair v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (2000) Ontario Court of Appeal
Decision of Sharpe J.A., with Rosenberg and Feldman JJ.A., concurring
FACTS:
CHOICE OF LAW:
CRITERIA APPLIED:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
International case
Ontario resident
Tennessee defendant
Slip and fall in New
York State
Defendant has no
business operations
or assets in Canada
Plaintiff spent 8
months in hospital in
Canada
Defendant moves to
set aside service and
stay the proceedings
•
Master found real and
substantial connection
with Ontario and very
severe juridical
disadvantage to bring
action in New York
because of location of
medical witnesses
Motions Court judge (on
appeal) held New York
was most convenient
forum and reasonable
expectations of the
parties was New York
jurisdiction
The court applied the
factors set out in Muscutt:
1) Plaintiff has significant
connection with
Ontario;
2) No connection with
Ontario for defendant;
3) Unfair to defendant to
assume jurisdiction;
4) Inconvenient to
plaintiff that not
significantly unfair;
5) No other parties;
6) Ontario court would
not recognize and
enforce an extraprovincial judgment in
a similar case;
DECISION:
ONTARIO COURT CANNOT
ASSUME JURISDICTION
7) International;
8) American defendant,
so the minimum
contacts doctrine
applies; no act or
conduct by the
defendant amounting
to personal subjection
to Ontario jurisdiction;
not meet international
standards to assume
jurisdiction.
•
CHOICE OF LAW
Since Ontario cannot
assume jurisdiction, court
not consider issue of
forum non conveniens.
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP
www.nelligan.ca
Somers v. Fournier and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (June 27, 2002)
Ontario Court of Appeal
Decision of Cronk J. A., with Finlayson and Carthy JJ.A., concurring
FACTS:
CHOICE OF LAW:
DECISION:
•
•
•
Follows: Tolofson v. Jensen
re: substantive rights of
parties in tort cases is the
law of the place where the
activity occurred, and the law
of the forum applies to
procedural matters.
•
•
•
•
•
International case
Plaintiffs resident of
Ontario
Defendant Fournier
resident of New York
State
Accident in New York
State on April 9,
1990
Fournier at fault (rear
end collision)
Subsequent accident
October 14, 1994,
Mrs. Somers injured
in Ontario
Liberty Mutual is the
Somers’ insurer and
the Fournier policy
has limits of
$300,000.00 U.S.,
inclusive of damages,
interest and costs
CHOICE OF LAW
•
•
Fournier has submitted
to the Ontario Courts
The question is whether
Somers can claim costs,
pre-judgment interest
(not allowed in New York
State) and the limit on
non-pecuniary damages
(New York State limit or
Supreme Court of
Canada trilogy limit)
Motion judge found
substantive law of New
York State applies and
procedural law of
Ontario. Also found
pre-judgment interest,
costs and “cap” on
general damages are
procedural and thus
governed by Ontario law
•
•
•
Substantive law of New
York State applies
Ontario law concerning
costs and “cap” on
non-pecuniary general
damages are matters of
procedure to which
Ontario law applies
Pre-judgment interest is a
matter of the substantive
law of Ontario, and has
no application in this
action
NOTE: The Court considered
whether injustice would be
occasioned by application of
the substantive law of New
York State, sufficient to
warrant an exception to the
lex loci delicti rule. Madam
Justice Cronk said no.
© Copyright 2003 Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP