In Olympique CMCT Inc. v Les Industries Pancor Limitée, 2017 ONSC 1929, the Plaintiff, Olympique, was a Quebec company. Olympique obtained default judgment in a Quebec action against the Defendants Pancor, an insolvent Ontario company, and Panarese, Pancor’s sole officer and director. Olympique brought an action in Ontario seeking recognition and enforcement of the Quebec judgment against Panarese in Ontario. Panarese argued that Ontario should not enforce the Quebec judgment because, among other reasons, the Quebec Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the Quebec judgment against him. Panarese lived in Ontario. Pancor was primarily located in Ontario. However, the Court stated that it was sufficient that Quebec had a real and substantial connection with the subject matter of the action, even if it had no connection with Panarese. The Court found that Panarese signed purchase orders which were transmitted to Olympique in Quebec, meaning that the contracts between Pancor and … Read More
Federal Court Restricts Republication of Canadian Legal Decisions Under PIPEDA
In the recent decision of A.T. v. Globe24h.com, the Federal Court held that the respondent’s re-hosting of publically available Canadian legal decisions ran afoul of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act‘s (PIPEDA’s) restriction on the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information without consent, prioritizing the personal information of individuals against the broad open court principle that would otherwise warrant the unrestricted publication of judicial decisions. The respondent operated a website out of Romania which focused on re-publishing judicial decisions which are already publically available through online services such as CanLII. The primary difference between the respondent and services like CanLII was that the respondent’s website was indexed such that its content would appear in search results on Google or other search engines, whereas decisions on CanLII are not indexed and would not appear on any search engine. Any person who collects, uses, or discloses personal information in respect of a … Read More
Court of Appeal Upholds Finding Of Jurisdiction Based on Business Activities in Ontario
In Stuart Budd & Sons Limited v. IFS Vehicle Distributors ULC, 2016 ONCA 977, the plaintiff/respondents were eight car dealerships. Four of the eight were located outside of Ontario. The defendant/appellants were: IFS Vehicle Distributors ULC (“IFS”), a British Columbia corporation; International Fleet Sales Inc. (“International”), a California corporation, an affiliate of IFS which supplied parts and accessories to IFS; and two individuals who were officers of both IFS and International, and who resided outside of Ontario. The defendants brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the out-of-province plaintiffs could not be part of the action, and could not sue the defendants in Ontario. However, the motion judge found that the claim was presumptively connected to Ontario based on one of the factors set out by the Supreme Court in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda: that the defendant carried on business within the jurisdiction. The motion judge found that … Read More
Court Refuses to Enforce Forum Selection Clause
In McMillan McGee Corp. v Northrop Grumman Canada, 2016 ONSC 6334, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants (“Northrop”) for damages arising from work done by the Plaintiff for the Northrop in Ontario. Northrop’s Request for Proposals included “Purchase Order Terms and Conditions” (the “RFP Terms and Conditions”). The RFP Terms and Conditions contained: a forum selection clause, stating that “either Party may only bring suit in federal or state court in the state from which this Order is issued”; and a choice of law clause, stating that “his Order will be construed and interpreted according to the law of the state from which this Order is issued, as identified in the Order”. “Order” was defined as “The instrument of contracting including this Purchase Order and all referenced documents”. The parties’ relationship involved three Purchase Orders, and many change orders. The lawsuit involved invoices delivered after the Second Purchase Order. The First Purchase Order … Read More
Cross-Border Ship Mortgage Enforcement
In an admiralty action in rem and in personam, Lakeland Bank v. Never E Nuff (Ship), 2016 FC 1096, the Federal Court dismissed the action in personam on a US mortgage, registered in New York State, against the mortgagor, a U.S.based former owner of a 38-foot pleasure craft and against its innocent purchaser for value without notice in Canada and dismissed the purchaser’s counterclaim for abuse of process, but ordered the return of a trailer and other personal items, which had been arrested in Canada with the pleasure craft, but were not covered by the mortgage. The Federal Court did however order that the action in rem be maintained and provided that the plaintiff shall promptly move for sale of the pleasure craft. The plaintiff, an American bank, held a first preferred mortgage registered at the National Vessel Documentation Center, United States Coast Guard. The bank had instituted proceedings in personam and in rem in the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, but it could … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal Split Decision on Appropriate Jurisdiction in Online Defamation Case
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Goldhar v. Haaretz.com on the issue of whether Ontario was the appropriate jurisdiction to litigate a defamation claim relating to an online publication by an Israeli newspaper that purported to defame Mr. Goldhar, who lives in Toronto but has business connections in Israel. The majority held that the litigation could proceed in Ontario, as the court had jurisdiction and also that Israel was not a clearly more convenient forum. The majority concluded that, even though Mr. Goldhar was likely more well-known in Israel, and the fact that the facts asserted in the article related to his ownership of a prominent Israeli soccer team, the article had the potential to damage his reputation in Ontario, and the article was read by a number of Ontarians (though only a fraction of the number who read the article in Israel), and therefore, the court had jurisdiction … Read More
US Court of Appeals Reverses Lower Court Decision; Re-Opens US Trademark Infringement Claims Against Canadian Operation
In Trader Joe’s Company v. Hallatt, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently overturned a lower court decision which had originally dismissed claims that Mr. Hallatt, a Canadian citizen but permanent resident of the United States, was violating the trademark rights of Trader Joe’s, a popular US grocery store chain, by reselling their products in Canada under the name “Pirate Joe’s” and by using an allegedly confusingly similar store design and motif. Mr. Hallatt’s business involved purchasing Trader Joe’s products in Washington state, transporting them across the border to British Columbia, and re-selling the product to Canadians at a mark-up. Trader Joe’s, which does not carry on business in Canada, sued in Washington state, claiming Mr. Hallatt was infringing on their US trademark rights. They asserted that Hallatt’s actions were damaging their trademark rights under US law. At the lower level, Trader Joe’s claims were dismissed, as … Read More
Joint Venture Disputes and International Joint Venture Arbitration
Joint ventures are often established to synergize what each member of the joint venture can add to the consortium. Sometimes a joint venture is the structure chosen because those members engaged in the joint venture are located in different jurisdictions, a consideration which may be pivotal for its success. While invariably created by contractual agreement, some joint ventures have been held by the courts to be a partnership, while others have been determined to be merely contractual, without comprising a partnership. A myriad of considerations have been used by the courts in determining whether a joint venture is a partnership. Issues have also arisen concerning the management and operational structure of a joint venture and whether such structure necessarily results in the joint venture being found to comprise a partnership. Historically the distinction between partner and contractor has been important, since the law only imposed a fiduciary duty upon partners, and not … Read More
Court of Appeal Provides Guidance on “Forum of Necessity” Doctrine
In Arsenault v. Nunavut, 2016 ONCA 207, the Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit in Ontario regarding an employment dispute with the defendant, the government of the Canadian territory of Nunavut. The motion judge concluded that Ontario did not have jurisdiction over the dispute because the dispute did not have a “real and substantial connection” with the province of Ontario, and that Nunavut was clearly the more appropriate forum to hear the dispute. The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the motion judge had not properly considered whether Ontario was the “forum of necessity” – i.e. the doctrine allowing the Court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute, even though there is no “real and substantial connection” with Ontario, because there is no other forum in which the plaintiff can reasonably seek relief (see our previous posts regarding the doctrine of “forum of necessity” here and here). The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal. The Court of Appeal noted … Read More
Enforcement of Ontario Judgment in US (U.S.A and American States)
If you are looking for Enforcement of US Judgment in Ontario, Canada, then click here. ____ Enforcement of Ontario Judgment in US (U.S.A and American States) We sometimes act for clients in litigation against defendants located in an American state, or having assets located in one or more U.S. states. Other times we are retained simply to assess and / or seek enforcement of an Ontario or other Canadian judgment in an U.S. state. Accordingly, the consideration sometimes arises whether a money judgment obtained in a court of Ontario or Canada is readily enforceable in a particular US state. Neither Ontario nor Canada is a party to any bilateral enforcement of money judgement treaty or convention with the U.S. or any particular state in the U.S.. However many U.S. states have enacted statutes concerning the enforcement of foreign (including Ontario and Canada) money-judgments in that state. Since this is largely … Read More
In Jurisdiction Dispute, Court of Appeal Confirms Contract Made Where Acceptance Received
In Eco-Tec Inc. v. Lu, the Plaintiff Ontario company researched, developed and manufactured proprietary technology and products. The Defendants were Lu, a Canadian citizen, his BVI company and three Chinese companies owned by him or his parents. The Defendant companies were the Plaintiff’s consultant, agent or distributor in China. In the course of their relationship, the Plaintiffs and Defendants signed a number of agreements. The Plaintiff ended its relationship with the Defendants in 2012, alleging that the Defendant’s Chinese companies were selling clones of the Plaintiff’s product in China. The Plaintiff brought a claim for breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and/or unlawful interference with its economic interests. The Defendants brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court did not have jurisdiction. The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding, among other reasons, that the dispute was connected … Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction Requirements for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
In Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the jurisdictional requirements for an Ontario court to consider a proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment. In this case, the plaintiffs obtained judgment against Chevron Corp. in Ecuador for some $9.5 billion USD, and they sought to enforce that judgment in Canada, against both Chevron Corp. and the Canadian subsidiary, Chevron Canada. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff does not have to show a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the foreign judgment debtor. The court need only be satisfied that there is a real and substantial connection between the foreign court and the defendant when the foreign court issued its judgment. Ontario courts will have jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in an enforcement proceeding as long as the defendant was properly served. It is not even a requirement that the defendant have assets in Ontario prior … Read More
Court Declines Jurisdiction over New York MVA Despite Passed Limitation Period
In Mannarino v The Estate of Jane Brown, the Superior Court declined to take jurisdiction over a claim involving a motor vehicle accident that took place in New York, even though the limitation period for bringing a claim in New York had since passed. The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle in the state of New York, and was involved in a car accident with another New York driver. The plaintiff sued in Ontario, claiming in part that the injuries suffered exacerbated an earlier motor vehicle injury which was already properly before the courts in Ontario. The plaintiff argued that the nature of the injuries would require the two actions to be consolidated. The court noted that no consolidation motion had yet been brought. Justice Skarica considered the factors outlined in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda for the court to take jurisdiction over a claim. The court found that none of … Read More
Court of Appeal Overturns Motion Decision on Forum Non Conveniens
In Bouzari v. Bahremani the Defendant Bahremani (the “Defendant”) had brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis that Ontario was forum non conveniens. The motion judge dismissed the motion, and the Defendant appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff had sued the Defendant for alleged events claimed were alleged to have taken place in Rome, Italy and Tehran, Iran. The Plaintiff lived in Vienna, Italy and England, before moving to Canada. The Defendant was a citizen of Iran, with no connection to Canada. When the action was commenced, the Defendant was living in England. By the time the Defendant commenced the forum non conveniens motion, the Defendant had returned to Iran and could not travel to Canada. Also, the Defendant had previously attempted to obtain a visa to enter Canada unsuccessfully on two occasions. The parties agreed that the action could not proceed in Iran. The Defendant argued that England was … Read More
Service of Foreign Process (including U.S. Proceedings) in Ontario, Canada
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
International Sale of Goods Convention – New Members in 2014 and 2015
The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”) establishes a comprehensive code of legal rules governing the formation of contracts for the international sale of goods, the obligations of the buyer and seller in contracts for the international sale of goods, and the remedies for breach of contracts for the international sale of goods. Canada on accession to the CISG declared that, in accordance with article 93 of the Convention, the Convention would extend to Ontario (and other provinces named in the declaration). The Canadian International Sale of Goods Contracts Convention Act, S.C. 1991, c. 13, has been in effect in Ontario since 1992 because of the International Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.10. These two acts brought into effect in Canada the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The Ontario International Sale of Goods Act provides that the contracting parties “may … Read More
- Page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2