Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:50:46.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2016

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2017

JOOST BLOM
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases / Jurisprudence
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 54 , October 2017 , pp. 585 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 2016 PECA 4, 376 Nfld & PEI R 68.

2 2016 ONSC 4618.

3 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 SCR 572, 343 DLR (4th) 577 [Van Breda].

4 Code civil du Québec, LQ 1991, ch 64, art 3139 [CCQ].

5 Côté J, in dissent, noted that it was unclear whether an incidental demand that had no connection with Quebec could constitutionally be brought within the court’s jurisdiction just because it was “incidental” to the principal demand. She thought the court should not risk pre-emptively settling, in obiter, a question of Quebec law that was not before the court. Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2016 SCC 30 at para 120, [2016] 1 SCR 851, 400 DLR (4th) 1.

6 Ibid at para 43.

7 Ibid at para 47.

8 Van Breda, supra note 3.

9 2016 SKQB 213, leave to appeal to Sask CA refused, 2016 SKCA 136 (27 October 2016).

10 2016 ONSC 3689.

11 2016 ONSC 6004, 134 OR (3d) 7.

12 SBC 2003, c 28 [CJPTA (BC)].

13 2016 BCSC 2179.

14 Van Breda, supra note 3.

15 Geophysical Service Inc v Arcis Seismic Solutions Corp, 2015 ABQB 88, cited in Geophysical Service Inc v Jebco Seismic UK Ltd, 2016 ABQB 402, 90 CPC (7th) 185 (Master) at para 35.

16 2016 BCSC 238, 83 CPC (7th) 56.

17 2016 ONSC 6929.

18 2016 NBQB 57, 447 NBR (2d) 160.

19 SNS 2003 (2d Sess), c 2 [CJPTA (NS)].

20 3289444 Nova Scotia Ltd v RW Armstrong & Associates Inc, 2016 NSSC 330 at para 66, 43 CBR (6th) 59.

21 A real and substantial connection with the province is one of the grounds of territorial competence under the CJPTA (NS), supra note 19, s 4(e).

22 The presumption is in ibid, s 11(e)(1).

23 Ibid, s 12.

24 2016 BCSC 2226, 42 CBR (6th) 21.

25 CJPTA (BC), supra note 12.

26 One of the presumed real and substantial connections under the CJPTA (BC), ibid, s 10(h).

27 Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12, s 12.

28 2016 BCSC 1393, 90 CPC (7th) 165.

29 2015 NBQB 165, noted in Joost Blom, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law” (2015) 53 CYIL 569.

30 2016 NBCA 59.

31 Leave to appeal to SCC granted, 37202 (9 March 2017).

32 The decision at first instance was briefly noted in Joost Blom, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law” (2015) 53 CYIL 569.

33 This principle was discussed, obiter, as an alternative to the place of publication in Banro Corp v Éditions Écosociété Inc, 2012 SCC 18, [2012] 1 SCR 636, 343 DLR (4th) 647.

34 2016 ONSC 1488.

35 2016 ONSC 6334.

36 2016 NLTD(G) 3, 378 Nfld & PEIR 264.

37 2016 BCSC 1500.

38 2016 NSSC 315.

39 2016 ONSC 2710.

40 2016 ONCA 176.

41 2016 ONSC 3645.

42 2016 SKQB 359.

43 2016 MBQB 214 (Master).

44 CJPTA (BC), supra note 12, s 11.

45 A representative proceeding is provided for under the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009 as amended, Rule 20-3. It permits an action to be continued by (or against) one or more persons as representing all, or some, of “numerous persons [who] have the same interest in [the] proceeding.” A decision in a representative proceeding binds all the parties who are represented by those who bring the action. It reflects a long-standing, but narrow, common law alternative to a class proceeding.

46 Araya v Nevsun Resources Ltd, 2016 BCSC 1856 at para 241 [Araya], quoting Teck Cominco Metals Ltd v Lloyd’s Underwriters, 2009 SCC 11 at para 22, [2009] 1 SCR 321.

47 United Mexican States v British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2015 BCCA 32, cited in Araya, supra note 46 at paras 366–67, 373.

48 In Araya, ibid at para 353, Abrioux J appears to state this “Kirkpatrick limitation” (so named after Kirkpatrick v Environmental Tectonics Corporation International, 493 US 400 (1990)) the wrong way around: “[T]he doctrine applies [sic] in cases in which the only issue is whether the act occurred, rather than the act’s legal effectiveness.” However, he quotes Yukos Capital SARL v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co, [2012] EWCA Civ 855 at para 110, which puts it the right way, describing the limitation as based on the distinction between “citing a foreign statute (an act of state) for what it says (or even for what it is disputed as saying) on the one hand, something which happens all the time, and on the other hand challenging the effectiveness of that statute on the ground, for instance, that it was not properly enacted, or had been procured by corruption, or should not be recognized because it was unfair or expropriatory or discriminatory” (at para 355).

49 RSBC 1996, c 50.

50 2015 BCSC 2045, [2016] 3 WWR 169, noted in Joost Blom, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law” (2015) 53 CYIL 585.

51 Garcia v Tahoe Resources Inc, 2017 BCCA 39.

52 2016 ABQB 411.

53 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37436 (8 June 2017).

54 2016 NBCA 23, 449 NBR (2d) 140.

55 2016 ONSC 3020.

56 SBC 2011, c 25 [FLA].

57 CJPTA (BC), supra note 12.

58 FLA, supra note 56, s 106(3)(a).

59 Ibid, s 106(2)(d).

60 Ibid, s 106(2)(c).

61 CJPTA (BC), supra note 12, s 3(d).

62 Ibid, s 3(e).

63 Ibid, s 10(a).

64 FLA, supra note 56, s 108(1), contains a definition of such a regime and specifies that it “does not include a regime of separate property or a system of law under which a spouse’s interest is deferred until or after the occurrence of an event that signifies the end of the relationship between the parties.”

65 Ibid, s 108(5).

66 Ibid, s 108(6).

67 Ibid, s 107(a).

68 Ibid, s 107(b).

69 Ibid, s 107(c).

70 2016 BCSC 1256.

71 2016 BCSC 469.

72 2016 ONSC 1241, 80 RFL (7th) 312.

73 Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C-12, s 22(1)(b)(iii) [CLRA].

74 2016 ABCA 341.

75 25 October 1980, CTS 1983/35, 19 ILM 1501, implemented in Ontario by the CLRA, supra note 73, s 46(2).

76 CLRA, supra note 73, s 22(2)(b).

77 2016 ONSC 2453, 81 RFL (7th) 155.

78 2016 BCSC 811.

79 2016 BCSC 129.

80 2016 BCSC 1397.

81 RSC 1985, c C-36.

82 2016 ONSC 595, 33 CBR (6th) 313.

83 2016 BCCA 7, 394 DLR (4th) 197.

84 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37171 (23 February 2017).

85 Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 17.05(2).

86 1965, 658 UNTS 163, referred to in Rules of Civil Procedure, supra note 85, Rule 17.05.

87 Evidence Act, RSBC 1996, c 124, s 53(4)(a).

88 2016 ONSC 1071.

89 RSBC 1996, c 78, ss 28–39.

90 Ibid, s 29(6)(a)(i).

91 Ibid, s 29(6)(a)(ii).

92 Ibid, s 29(6)(a)(f).

93 Ibid, s 29(6)(a)(g).

94 2016 BCSC 602.

95 2016 BCSC 723, 86 BCLR (4th) 427.

96 2016 SKQB 106.

97 Ibid, s 34(1).

98 SS 2005, c E-9.121. The Act is modeled on the uniform act of the same title promulgated by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in 2003, online: <http://www.ulcc.ca/en/uniform-acts-new-order/current-uniform-acts/735-judgments/foreign/foreign-civil-judgments/1748-enforcement-of-foreign-judgments-act>.

99 Ibid, s 4(f).

100 Ibid, s 4(g).

101 Ibid, s 3(e).

102 Ibid, ss 6(1) (non-compensatory damages), 6(2) (compensatory damages).

103 Ibid, s 3(e).

104 Ibid.

105 Ibid, s 6(1).

106 Ibid, s 6(2).

107 SC 2012, c 1 [JVTA].

108 RSC 1985, c S-18, as amended by SC 2012, c 1.

109 JVTA, supra note 108, s 4(2).

110 Tracy (Litigation Guardian of) v Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, 2014 ONSC 1696, noted in Joost Blom, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law” (2014) 52 CYIL 605.

111 2016 ONSC 5507.

112 SO 2009, c 3.

113 2016 ONSC 4188, 92 CPC (7th) 181.

114 2288450 Ontario Ltd v NovaJet, 2016 NSSC 77.

115 2016 ABQB 64.

116 Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s 22(1) and (2), respectively.

117 Ibid, s 22(3).

118 This decision is believed to be under appeal.

119 CcQ, supra note 4, art 3126: “L’obligation de réparer le préjudice causé à autrui est régie par la loi de l’État où le fait générateur du préjudice est survenu.”

120 Ibid, art 3126(2): “Dans tous les cas, si l’auteur et la victime ont leur domicile ou leur résidence dans le même État, c’est la loi de cet État qui s’applique.”

121 Ibid, art 3082: “À titre exceptionnel, la loi désignée par le présent livre n’est pas applicable si, compte tenu de l’ensemble des circonstances, il est manifeste que la situation n’a qu’un lien éloigné avec cette loi et qu’elle se trouve en relation beaucoup plus étroite avec la loi d’un autre État. La présente disposition n’est pas applicable lorsque la loi est désignée dans un acte juridique.”