The first decision is from the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Van Damme v. Gelber, 2013 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…)
Archive for the ‘“strong cause” test’ Category
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…)