Archive for the ‘attornment’ Category

Two Important Ontario Attornment Decisions

September 16, 2013

The first decision is from the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Van Damme v. Gelber2013 ONCA 388  (Ont. C.A.) per  Doherty, J.A. (Cronk and Lauwers JJ.A. concurring). In Van Damme, the plaintiff, a successful businessman and philanthropist obtained judgment in the Supreme Court of New York against the defendant, Nahum Gelber (“Gelber”), relating to Van Damme’s purchase of a painting from Gelber. The painting was being held in Ontario pursuant to an Ontario court order.  Van Damme successfully moved in the Ontario proceeding for an order of recognition and enforcement New York judgment in Ontario and a variation of the earlier Ontario order directing that the painting be released to him, with costs on a substantial indemnity basis. (more…)

Ontario Court of Appeal: Jurisdiction Simpliciter Established by Defendant’s Residence in Ontario and Attornment

February 26, 2013
Court of Appeal window

Court of Appeal window (Photo credit: lancea)

The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Zhang v. Hua Hai Li Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., 2013 ONCA 103 (CanLII), has reaffirmed that jurisdiction simpliciter is established by presence-based jurisdiction and consent-based jurisdiction (delivery of a Statement of Defence and other merit-based steps constitute attornment):

[5]         In our view, the appeal should be dismissed but for reasons different from those given by the motion judge.

[6]         This is not a jurisdictional case.  The respondents live and were served in Ontario and the Ontario courts accordingly have jurisdiction.  It is also significant that before the respondents brought the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the appellants filed a statement of defence and took other steps in connection with the action.  Even if the appellants had not been served within Ontario, they have attorned to the jurisdiction.

[7]         The forum non conveniens issue is not relevant.

[8]         We see no merit in this appeal and it is therefore dismissed.

Ontario Court Orders Cross-Examinations of Foreign Witnesses by Video Conferencing

May 11, 2012
Lights! Camera! Action! Hosted by Steven Spielberg

Lights! Camera! Action! Hosted by Steven Spielberg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The recent decision in Code Inc. v. Indepedent High Electoral Commission, 2012 ONSC 2208 (CanLII) [“Code Inc.“] held that video conferencing is a viable option for the conduct of cross-examinations of foreign witnesses on a jurisdictional motion.  (more…)

The Supreme Court of Canada Conflict of Laws Trilogy: Part I

April 19, 2012

Following up on yesterday’s post, this will be a two-part series of posts on the Supreme Court of Canada conflict of laws trilogy in:

Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC  17 (“Van Breda”);

Éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp., 2012 SCC 18 (“Banro”) and

Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19. (“Black”).

In Part I, I will critically analyze the Van Breda decision and its implications to Canadian conflict of laws generally. In Part II, I will discuss the Banro and Black decisions from the perspective of internet defamation, corporate liability, choice of law and libel tourism. (more…)

A Triumph of Form Over Substance: Momentous.ca Corp. v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd.

March 15, 2012

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision this morning in Momentous.ca Corp. v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd.2012 SCC 9 (SCC). 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. (more…)


%d bloggers like this: