Archive for the ‘The Eleftheria’ Category

1673332 Ontario Limited v. Habonim Industrial Valves & Actuators Ltd. (Ont. SCJ)

November 28, 2011

In 1673332 Ontario Limited v. Habonim Industrial Valves & Actuators Ltd., 2011 ONSC 4973 (CanLII), the Defendant, Habonim Industrial Valves & Actuators Ltd., an Israeli company, moved for an order dismissing or staying this action based on a contractual forum selection provision.  The Defendant also submitted that there was  no real and substantial connection between the subject matter of the action and Ontario, and Ontario is forum non conveniens.  In addition, they sought an order setting aside service of the Statement of Claim.   (more…)

Viroforce Systems Inc. v. R&D Capital Inc.: Is the “strong cause” test discretionary?

June 23, 2011

In Viroforce Systems Inc. v. R&D Capital Inc., 2011 BCCA 260 (CanLII), the British Columbia Court of Appeal has expressly endorsed Justice Laskin’s analytical approach to consent-based jurisdiction in Momentus.ca Corp. v. Canadian American Assn. of Professional Baseball Ltd., 2010 ONCA 722 (CanLII),2010 ONCA 722 at paras. 35 to 39, 325 D.L.R. (4th) 685, leave to appeal granted [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 473. (more…)

Susan Brown on “Governing Law Clauses: Jurisdiction, An Evolving Area of Law in Ontario (2011 Update)”

June 23, 2011

Susan Brown of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP provides a thorough analysis of the current state of the law of jurisdiction in Ontario in Governing Law Clauses: Jurisdiction, An Evolving Area of  Law in Ontario (2011 Update).

The updated paper (originally presented at the  2010 CCLA Solicitors Conference) discusses, inter alia, the Court of Appeal for Ontario decisions in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Limited, 2010 ONCA 84 and Momentous.ca Corporation v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd., 2010 ONCA 722 (CanLII), 2010 ONCA 722, 103 O.R. (3d) 467, both of which have wended their way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I commend Brown’s article to civil and commercial litigators,corporate counsel,  legal academics and law students.

Related articles

Nova Scotia Court Throws a “Curve” on Consent-Based Jurisdiction

June 10, 2011
Curves International

Image via Wikipedia

The recent Supreme Court of Nova Scotia decision in Curves International, Inc. v. Archibald, 2011 NSSC 217 (CanLII) is an odd jurisdictional motion involving a franchise agreement with a result that throws a curve on consent-based jurisdcition. (more…)

Supreme Court of Canada Agrees To Hear A “Momentous” Decision on Consent-Based Jurisdiction

May 19, 2011
Supreme Court of Canada building, Ottawa, Onta...

Image via Wikipedia

The Supreme Court of Canada today granted leave to appeal in Momentous.ca Corporation et al. v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd.et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (33999). The application for leave to appeal was granted with costs in the cause. Coram: LeBel, Deschamps, Charron JJ.

A copy of my brief case comment entitled “A “Momentous” Decision on Consent-Based Jurisdiction“, OBA Civil Litigation Section “Keeping Tabs” Volume 19, No. 2 January/Janvier 2011, is available here.

Here is the SCC Case Summary:

Private international law — Courts — Jurisdiction — Forum selection clauses — Attornment — Applicant baseball club suing Can-Am league and its principals in contract and tort — Defendants bringing motion to stay or dismiss action on ground that Ontario court had no jurisdiction — Whether Court of Appeal, having ruled that defendants did in fact attorn to jurisdiction of Ontario court, then erred in concluding that defendants could nevertheless still rely upon foreign forum selection and dispute resolution clauses — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 21.01(3)(a).

Rapidz Baseball fielded a professional baseball team in the Can-Am League during the 2008 season. The team played its home games in a stadium owned by the City of Ottawa. However, because of losses it had incurred during the season, Rapidz Baseball gave the League notice that it would be unable to operate beyond 2008. It applied under the League’s by-laws to withdraw voluntarily because of financial hardship. The League’s Board of Directors rejected Rapidz Baseball’s application. Instead, they terminated its membership and drew down a $200,000 letter of credit Rapidz Baseball had been required to post under the by-laws. Rapidz Baseball and its related companies sued the League and its principals, and the City of Ottawa, both in contract and tort.

The League and its principals brought a motion under rule 21.01(3)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay or dismiss the action on the ground that an Ontario court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. They relied on the choice of forum and arbitration clauses in the League’s by-laws and in the agreements signed by the plaintiffs, under which the plaintiffs agreed that all disputes with the League would be resolved in the state of North Carolina and would be subject to arbitration.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,063 other followers

%d bloggers like this: