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
Dubai’s DIFC Announces Amendment of Arbitration Law to Accord with New York Convention
Canada and UAE – New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards In 2006, United Arab Emirates joined 137 other nations in acceding to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the so-called 1958 New York Convention). Canada acceded to the New York Convention in 1986 declaring that it would apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, that were considered commercial under the laws of Canada, except in the case of the Province of Quebec where the law did not provide for such limitation. In Ontario, it found its way into the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSO 1990, c I.9 to the extent it is contained in the UNCITRAL Model Law, a schedule thereto. Respect of Arbitration Agreements under the New York Convention By Article II (3) of the New York Convention “The court of a Contracting State, when seized of … Read More
Court of Appeal Refuses to Exercise Long-Arm Jurisdiction
In West Van Inc. v. Daisley, the Motion Judge found that the claim did not have a “real and substantial connection” to Ontario to give the Ontario Courts jurisdiction. The Plaintiff, a Canadian company, was suing an American lawyer for work he had done for the Plaintiff company in the U.S. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Court should exercise jurisdiction under the “forum of necessity” exception; the Ontario Courts may assume jurisdiction over a case which it otherwise would not if there is no other forum where the Plaintiff can “reasonably” sue. The Plaintiff argued that it could not reasonably sue the American lawyer in North Carolina because it could not find a lawyer to represent it there. The Plaintiff had called lawyers in two of North Carolina’s largest cities, but none would agree to take the case. The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the difficulty in … Read More