“Club Resorts Ltd. v. Anna Charron, Estate Trustee of the Estate of Claude Charron, deceased, the said Anna Charron, personally et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (33606)Coram: McLachlin / Abella / Cromwell
“The application for leave to appeal…is granted without costs.”
Club Resorts Ltd. v. Morgan Van Breda et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (33692)
(The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is granted without costs. /
Coram: McLachlin / Abella / Cromwell”
The stated issues are:
Issue No. 1: “Whether the law of assumed jurisdiction among common law provinces should be harmonized by establishing a uniform test for determining presence of a real and substantial connection to a province? and
Issue No. 2: “Whether real and substantial connection test pronounced by Ontario Court of Appeal is appropriate as a model for a harmonized test?”
Frankly, I am somewhat surprised that the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave. If the issue is whether or not the objective is harmonization or uniformity, what the Van Breda lacks in either, it makes up in by judicializing the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA).
There have been no legislative updates since Professor Janet Walker, in association with the Law Commission of Ontario, released the Consultation Paper “Codification of Judicial Jurisdiction in Ontario
” (see my previous post here
). It would be preferable for the Ontario Liberal government to pass the CJPTA
in its original form (as adopted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada,
) rather than modify the test for assumed jurisdiction. In any event, the most intriguing issue, in my view ,is whether the “forum of necessity” doctrine—which now forms part of the new Van Breda
test—will pass judicial muster. Stay tuned.