Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50881
ANSWERS (A). Following the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd., a court, when addressing the test of "real and substantial connection" (cf. Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990], Hunt v. T&N plc, [1993], Beals v. Saldanha, [2003]), should determine whether the claim falls under rule 17.02 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. If it does, a "real and substantial connection" is presumed to exist, and the burden falls to the party contesting jurisdiction to rebut that presumption. However, subrules 17.02(h) (damage sustained in Ontario) and (o) (necessary or proper party) do not attract that presumptive effect. Therefore, the bur- den of proving a real and substantial connection because of damage sustained in the province remains with the plaintiff. The burden for proving that there is another more appropriate forum is a secondary and separate test to the "real and substantial connection" test and the burden for proving that remains with the party asserting it. FALSE. The Supreme Court in Beals stated that the "real and substantial connection" test should apply equally to the recognition of foreign judgments. The Ontario Court of Appeal has stated, in Van Breda, that this assertion does not mean that the "real and substantial connection" test is equally applicable, in all circumstances (i.e. those circumstances beyond recognition of foreign judgments), to both interprovincial matters and international matters. There remain important juridical distinctions to be applied to judgments emanating from a Canadian court and judgments emanating from a non-Canadian court. This view is supported by Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, [2009]. (C). In Van Breda, the Ontario Court of Appeal accepted that while fairness, to both the plaintiff and the defendant, remain important factors to take into account when deciding to assume or refuse jurisdiction, it is not a "separate inquiry" or an "independent factor capable of trumping the want of a real and substantial connection between the forum and the plaintiff's claim and/or the defendant." FALSE. A defendant's insurance in a dispute may be taken into account at the forum non conveniens stage as a factor mitigating any difficulty the defendant would otherwise have litigating in Ontario. It should not, however, be taken into account at the jurisdiction simpliciter stage when addressing fairness. YOUR RANKING? n One or fewer correct: Might be time to brush up n Two correct: Not bad, but could do better. n Three correct: Very well done, but not perfect. n Four correct: Impressive. Visit us online! canadianlawyermag.com lawtimesnews.com Fresh content delivered weekly. 14 • JUNE 2010 Untitled-2 1 Canadian Lawyer | Law Times |es 4Students | InHouse INHOUSE 5/7/10 10:48:05 AM 1 2 3 4