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 constitutional principles of order and fairness require consistency in standards for assumption of jurisdiction simpliciter in Canadian common law jurisdictions Whether and how the bases of jurisdiction relied upon by the Court of Appeal accord with the common standards emerging in other parts of Canada Whether a Court should exercise its exceptional jurisdiction as a forum of necessity in a case where the defendant cannot make full answer and defence Whether the “doing business” jurisdiction that was relied upon by the Court of Appeal accords with the principles of order and fairness Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario in this case What role should the overarching principle of the right to make full answer and defence play in the forum non conveniens test.

In early June 2003, respondents Morgan Van Breda and Victor Berg travelled from Toronto for a stay at the SuperClubs Breezes Jibacoa resort in Cuba. The trip had been arranged by Berg, a professional squash player, through Rene Denis who, from his home in Ottawa, arranged bookings for squash, tennis, and aerobics instructors to instruct at certain Caribbean resorts Denis had an arrangement with the appellant, Club Resorts Ltd. (“CRL”), to find instructors for CRL resorts. Shortly after arriving at the resort, Van Breda was seriously injured while attempting to do chin ups using a tubular metal apparatus. Because of the injury, Van Breda and Berg did not return to Ontario as they had intended. Shortly after her fall, Van Breda was taken to Calgary, Alberta, the home of her family. She and Berg have since moved to British Columbia, where they currently reside.

The respondents commenced an action against several defendants, including CRL, in May 2006 for personal injury damages, punitive damages and damages for loss of support, care, guidance and companionship pursuant to the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.1. All defendants moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction or to stay the action on grounds of forum non conveniens. The motion judge dismissed the action against two defendants and refused to dismiss or stay the action against CRL and two other defendants. CRL appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, reformulating the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction.