Nick Poon was recently asked to comment on the doctrine of frustration and force majeure clauses in the context of travel refunds during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Huffington Post article is found here: You Can Still Get a Refund for a Flight Cancellation During Coronavirus Pandemic. If you require legal advice and representation in respect to contract termination and cancellation, frustration of contract and force majeure clauses and/or travel and tourism, please contact us for an initial consultation.
In Di Gregorio v. Sunwing Vacations Inc., the appellants purchased a vacation package to attend the Dreams Punta Cana Resort and Spa through their travel agent, Sunwing Vacations Inc. (“Sunwing”). While on vacation, the balcony railing gave way resulting in the appellants sustaining injuries. The motion judge was found to have erred in not conducting a jurisdictional analysis pursuant to Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda. The Court of Appeal stated that the relevant connecting factor is that the claim pleaded was based on an Ontario contract. The alleged tortfeasors do not need to be party to the contract, as all that is required is that a “defendant’s conduct brings it within the scope of the contractual relationship and that the events that give rise to the claim flow from the contractual relationship” as stated in Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melancon LLP v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. The Court of … Read More
In Cook v 1293037 Alberta Ltd., the Ontario Plaintiff was allegedly injured in an incident at the Defendant’s Alberta hotel. The Plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario respecting the incident nearly two years after the incident occurred. The Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the grounds that Ontario did not have jurisdiction over the claim. By the time the Defendant brought the motion, more than two years had passed since the incident. The Ontario Court applied the test for jurisdiction simpliciter set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda – i.e. whether the claim had a “real and substantial connection” to Ontario. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant corporation was “domiciled or resident in Ontario” because one of the corporation’s directors had moved to Toronto, Ontario following the incident. The Court rejected this argument, stating that there was no evidence that the … Read More
Since 1989 Canada has been a member of Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, (the Hague Service Convention). The Hague Service Convention requires its member States to designate a “Central Authority” to accept incoming requests for service. The Central Authority in Canada, on the federal level, is the Attorney General for Canada, and the Central Authority on the provincial level, in Ontario is the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice. In Ontario, service of foreign proceeding under the Hague Service Convention requires that a completed Request for Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents Form together with the prescribed number of originating process documents and prescribed fee to the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario. There are alternatives to the Hague Service Convention service of foreign process in Ontario. If you are seeking advice or … Read More
In Klein v. Occidental Hotels & Resorts, 2014 ONSC 2221, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of whether a foreign hotel operator was properly served with a claim made in Ontario with respect to an accident that occurred at its hotel in the Dominican Republic. In this case, the Plaintiff purportedly served the claim on the receptionist at the address of the hotel operator’s office in Toronto. The hotel operator argued that it does not have any offices in Ontario nor does it carry on business in Ontario, and the location where the claim was purportedly served was the address of the marketing company it uses in Ontario. The hotel operator maintained that the marketing company was not its agent. In considering whether the hotel operator was properly served, Justice Healey considered the three-part test to determine whether a corporation is carrying on business in Ontario: (i) has the corporation carried on business in the jurisdiction for a sufficiently substantial period of time; (ii) … Read More