Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2019

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2020

Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

Image of the first page of this article
Type
Cases/Jurisprudence
Copyright
© The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1 Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28, s 3(a).

2 Ibid, s 3(b).

3 Ibid, s 11.

4 2019 ABQB 70, 42 CPC (8th) 398 (Master).

5 Under the transfer provisions of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SS 1997, c C 41.1 [CJPTA (SK)].

6 Ibid, s 10.

7 Ibid, s 10(2)(b).

8 Ibid, s 10(2)(f).

9 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38834 (16 April 2020).

10 Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SNS 2003, c 2 [CJPTA (NS)].

11 Ibid, s 11(e).

12 Ibid, s 11(g).

13 Ibid, s 11(h).

14 Ibid, s 12.

15 Ibid, s 12(2)(b).

16 Ibid, s 12(2)(e).

17 2019 ONSC 5916.

18 On presumptive connecting factors, see note 20 below.

19 2019 SKQB 275. Jurisdiction simpliciter (territorial competence under the CJPTA (SK), supra note 5) was not discussed, apparently because the alleged fraud was a tort committed in Saskatchewan, where the target of the fraud lived.

note 5

20 The common law factors that presumptively establish a real and substantial connection with the province. The methodology of presumptive connecting factors was introduced by Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 SCR 572.

21 CJPTA (SK), supra note 5.

note 5

22 Ibid, s 22(1).

23 Ibid, s 12(1)(b).

24 CJPTA (NS), supra note 10.

note 10

25 Ibid, s 7.

26 2019 ONSC 5197.

27 2019 PEISC 47.

28 2019 ABQB 530, 42 CPC (8th) 374 (Master).

29 Jurisdiction simpliciter was found on the basis of the presumptive connecting factor that the defendant was a necessary or proper party to the plaintiff’s action against two other parties, who were served in Alberta. These parties were the plaintiff’s former employers, whom the plaintiff sued for wrongfully making public her identity as the victim of the assault by the defendant, who was a fellow employee at the time.

30 CJPTA (NS), supra note 10, s 11(b).

note 10

31 2019 ONSC 5197.

32 2019 QCCS 3599.

33 Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 21.03(3)(a) and (c), respectively.

34 2019 BCSC 1746.

35 2019 ONSC 947, 144 OR (3d) 254.

36 2019 ONCA 372, 93 BLR (5th) 169.

37 Azam v Jan, 2013 ABQB 301, 362 DLR (4th) 111.

38 There is at present no authority that would permit a Canadian court to grant a divorce, even to a person domiciled in Canada, in respect of a marriage that was entered into as a polygamous marriage and is still actually polygamous. Matrimonial relief is barred by the principle in Hyde v Hyde (1866), LR 1 P & D 130, a position strongly criticized by Bielby JA in her concurring judgment in Azam v Jan, 2012 ABCA 197 at paras 20–23.

39 RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp).

40 SBC 2011, c 25.

41 Ibid, s 106.

42 This is the statutory choice-of-law rule, ibid, s 108(5), if the first common habitual residence is in a community of property jurisdiction, which for this purpose British Columbia was held to be.

43 2019 BCSC 96.

44 Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s 3(1).

45 Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, s 106(2)(d).

46 2019 SKQB 95, [2019] 10 WWR 463.

47 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Can TS 1983 No 35 (entered into force 1 December 1983), implemented in Alberta by the International Child Abduction Act, RSA 2000, c I-4.

48 The hybrid approach treats both factual connections and the parents’ intentions as relevant, neither to the exclusion of the other, and was adopted in Office of the Children’s Lawyer v Balev, 2018 SCC 16, noted in Joost Blom, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2018” (2018) 56 CYIL 571 at 584–87 [Blom, “Canadian Cases 2018”].

49 Ibid, art 13(b).

50 2019 MBQB 174.

51 2019 ONSC 4341, 147 OR (3d) 121.

52 2019 NBQB 46.

53 2019 ONSC 4517, 27 RFL (8th) 96.

54 2019 BCSC 804, 24 RFL (8th) 310.

55 Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, s 74(2).

56 Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 30, s 42.

57 RSA 2000, c W-15, s 23.

58 Interjurisdictional Agreement on Workers’ Compensation (2006, amended in 2017), online: Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada <https://awcbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/IJ-Consolidated-Agreement-2017.pdf>.

59 RDX made an unsuccessful application for security for the costs of an appeal being brought from this decision. RDX Technologies Corp v Appel, 2019 ABCA 338.

60 2019 CSC 50.

61 Threlfall c Carleton University, 2017 QCCA 1632, noté dans Joost Blom, “Jurisprudence canadienne en matière de droit international privé en 2017” (2017) 55 ACDI 598 aux pp 642–43 [Blom, “Jurisprudence canadienne 2017”].

62 LRC 1985, 2e suppl, c 3.

63 Droit de la famille — 172244, 2017 QCCA 1470, noté dans Blom, “Jurisprudence canadienne 2017,” supra note 61 aux pp 619–21.

note 61

64 2019 QCCS 4451.

65 2019 QCCS 75.

66 2019 QCCS 3599.

67 RLRQ, c A-23.01.

68 2019 QCCS 1207, requête pour permission d’appeler rejetée, 19 juin 2019, 2019 QCCA 1077.

69 2019 QCCS 3184, affirmée 2020 QCCA 490.

70 Requête pour permission d’appeler rejetée, 2 avril 2019, 2019 QCCA 582.

71 2019 QCCS 4510.

72 2019 QCCS 3790.

73 2019 QCCS 3890.

74 Requête pour permission d’appeler rejetée, 29 novembre 2019, 2019 QCCA 2091.

75 Côté J dissented. Her reasons were issued on 1 May 2020.

76 2019 QCCS 465.

77 2019 QCCS 4730.

78 2019 QCCS 2359, requête en autorisation de pourvoi rejetée, 30 septembre 2019, 2019 QCCA 1700.

79 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 15 November 1965, 658 UNTS 163 (entered into force 10 February 1969).

80 2019 ABCA 241, 91 Alta LR (6th) 59.

81 2019 BCSC 2117.

82 2019 ONSC 6683, 58 CCEL (4th) 192.

83 Convention de la Haye relative à la signification et la notification à l’étranger des actes judiciaires et extrajudiciaires en matière civile ou commerciale, 15 novembre 1965, 658 RTNU 163 (entrée en vigueur: 10 février 1969).

84 2019 QCCS 4636.

85 2019 SKQB 56.

86 Sub nom Sleep Number Corp v Maher Sign Products.

87 Under the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, SBC 2003, c 29, s 2.

88 2019 ONCA 821, 31 RFL (8th) 140.

89 SO 2002, c 24.

90 The relevant legislation was the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, SO 2002, c 13, and the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, SBC 2002, c 29.

91 2019 ONSC 5314.

92 Under the Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, s 41.

93 2019 ABQB 181, 89 Alta LR (6th) 264.

94 2019 ABCA 443, 440 DLR (4th) 383.

95 HOOPP Realty Inc v Guarantee Co of North America, 2018 ABQB 634, noted in Blom, “Canadian Cases 2018,” supra note 48 at 602–03.

note 48

96 Tolofson v Jensen, [1994] 3 SCR 1022.

97 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38974 (9 April 2020).

98 2019 ABQB 38, 87 Alta LR (6th) 426.

99 RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s 22(1)–(2).

100 Ibid, s 23(3).

101 Domestic Relations Law, Cons L NY § 236(B)(5).

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 5 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 13th November 2020 - 19th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-vchrx Total loading time: 1.721 Render date: 2021-01-19T03:32:48.177Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Tue Jan 19 2021 02:56:22 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2019
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2019
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2019
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *