Category: Jurisdiction

0

Lapointe v Cassels Brock: SCC clarifies the fourth Van Breda presumptive connecting factor

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 [Van Breda] brought greater judicial guidance to the question of when a Canadian court may assume jurisdiction over a claim. The SCC articulated four non-exhaustive presumptive connecting factors (PCFs) that a party may rely on to establish a real and substantial connection between the dispute and the jurisdiction in which they seek to advance the claim. The SCC’s recent decision in Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2016 SCC 30 [Lapointe] clarified the test governing the fourth Van...

1

No Clarification on Extradition: MM v United States of America

In MM v United States of America, 2015 SCC 62 [MM], both the public and the Bench were sharply divided on whether to extradite a mother, MM. The U.S. sought extradition of MM to face child abduction charges in the state of Georgia. MM’s numerous supporters see her as a mother that came to her children’s aid after they ran away from their abusive father. MM has received public support from the BC Civil Liberties Association, an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), Women Who Choose to Live, the New Democratic Party’s Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Critic, Jenny Kwan...

0

R v Moriarity: Reconfirming the Jurisdiction of Court Martial in Canada

In R v Moriarity, 2015 SCC 55 [Moriarity], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) looked at whether certain provisions of the National Defence Act, RSC 1985, c N-5 [NDA] are overbroad and contrary to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter]. The practical consequences of the case have to do with the ability of military courts to adjudicate offences committed by members of the military under civilian circumstances. In a thirty-five page decision, Justice Cromwell quickly dismissed the Charter arguments of the appellants, effectively affirming the jurisdiction of military courts.

1

Chevron v Yaiguaje: Small Step for the Plaintiffs, (Relatively) Small Step for Mankind

It is tempting to believe, or at least hope, that the recent Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42 [Chevron] is one of the last acts of the Chevron saga, and a leap forward for environmentalism. Alas, the decision is more like the prologue to yet another season of the show, and without further changes, the leap may be more like a gentle skip. My colleague has discussed and summarized the decision itself, here. Now, I invite you to look ahead to what’s coming for Chevron and the future of global corporations’ liability...

0

Yaiguaje v Chevron Corporation: Enforcing and Recognizing Foreign Judgments in Canada

In Yaiguaje v Chevron Corporation, 2013 ONCA 758 [Yaiguaje], a decision released on December 17, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the power of Ontario courts to hear actions seeking to enforce and recognize foreign judgments in Ontario. In this context, the court also discussed the appropriateness of staying a proceeding pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C 43 [Courts of Justice Act].

1

Curactive Organic Skin Care v Ontario: St. Clair West Streetcar Class Action Hits Roadblock

I apologize for the at-times-Toronto-centric nature of this blog, but public transit in Rob Ford’s Hogtown is too contentious an issue to ignore. Though this case stems from the before-Ford era, the issues that it considers are as pressing today as ever. Back in 2003—under the leadership of Mel Lastman, of all people—the City of Toronto decided to expand the TCC. First order of business: replace the St. Clair West streetcar with something that looks a whole lot like light-rail transit, but apparently isn’t.

0

A Wrong Turn Can Lead to the Right Destination: The SCC Gives the Green Light to Public Interest Litigation Funding in R v Caron

On February 4, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) reasserted its support for interim costs in relation to public interest litigation in R v Caron, 2011 SCC 5. In this case, the SCC had to determine for the first time whether a superior court could grant interim costs in favour of litigants participating in proceedings before a provincial court. It also had to determine whether the respondent, Mr. Gilles Caron, qualified for interim costs. This seemingly straightforward case was complicated by two red herrings.

0

Muscutt Quintet Test Simplified in Van Breda v Village Resorts Ltd

Almost eight years ago, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) set out an eight-factor test in Muscutt v Courcelles (2002), 60 OR (3d) 20 [Muscott], to determine what circumstances Ontario could take jurisdiction over an out-of-province defendant. The OCA held that there must be a “real and substantial connection” between the dispute and forum for taking jurisdiction over an out-of-province defendant. However, on February 2, 2010, the court heard two cases that led to a re-articulation of the eight-step Muscutt test. The two cases, consolidated on appeal as Van Breda v Village Resorts Limited, 2010 ONCA 84 [Van Breda], involved Ontario residents suffering...

0

Khadr, Khadr, He’s Our Man, If He Can’t Do it… oh.

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) handed down its decision in Canada (Prime Minister) v Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, on Friday, which may have prompted a call to Omar Khadr from his lawyers telling him, “So close, and yet so far…” TheCourt.ca covered Khadr’s case back in September 2009, before it was argued at the SCC (see my original post here, and Ahsan Mirza’s counterpoint here). Unsurprisingly, the Court didn’t take my advice to dismiss the appeal and confirm a duty on the government to attempt to repatriate its citizens when they are held in conditions that breach international human rights norms. Disappointingly,...

0

Decision Released: Phoenix Bulk Carriers v Kremikovtzi Trade

On February 12, I wrote about the hearing of Phoenix Bulk Carriers Ltd v Kremikovtzi Trade, a case in which the Federal Court of Appeal, while adhering to its own precedent, openly invited the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) to reverse its decision. Justice Nadon outlined the reasons why he felt a different result should be achieved, but indicated that he did not feel this to be the type of case in which it was appropriate for the Federal Court of Appeal to overrule its own precedent. In a judgment released on Friday, the SCC reversed the FCA decision (see...