Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Private international law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Choice of forum - Forum conveniens - Real and substantial connection test - Foreign defendants moving to dismiss action for want of jurisdiction or to stay action on grounds of forum non conveniens - Court of Appeal reformulating assumed jurisdiction test set out in Muscutt v. Courcelles (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 20 (C.A.) - Whether the law of assumed jurisdiction among the common law provinces should be harmonized by establishing a uniform test for determining the presence of a real and substantial connection - Whether the new test for jurisdiction pronounced by the Court of Appeal in this case is appropriate as the model for a harmonized test - Whether the Court of Appeal’s new jurisdiction test fails to achieve the objectives of order and fairness because its retention of the Muscutt factors results in excessive flexibility and consequent unpredictability - What is a preferable test for the determination of jurisdiction over a foreign defendant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the plaintiffs’ claim against CRL - Whether the Court of Appeal and the motion judge erred and applied incorrect legal principles in failing to decline jurisdiction under the forum non conveniens doctrine.

The Respondent members of the Charron family brought an action based on breach of contract and negligence on behalf of the estate of Claude Charron and on their own behalf pursuant to provisions of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, after Claude died in a diving accident at a resort in Cuba. The statement of claim named two Ontario defendants and several foreign defendants, including the appellant. The appellant brought a motion to dismiss the action against it on the basis that Ontario did not have jurisdiction or, alternatively, to stay the action on the grounds that Ontario was not the most appropriate forum. The motion judge found that Ontario did have jurisdiction to hear the case, and refused to dismiss or stay the action. The appellant appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, reformulating the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction.