Conflict of Laws Outline

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "#$%&'()$"&# !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! +,#,%-. )&#/"',%-$"&#/ "
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )012134526714689: /;<=41935 >= ?2835@;25 A
.............................................................................................................................................................. Limitation Peiious 7
........................................................................................................................................................... 0thei Kinus of Rules 7
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ,B3C;=68912D %;C5= E
........................................................................................................................................................................... Public Policy 8
.............................................................................................................................................................................. Penal Laws 9
........................................................................................................................................................................ Revenue Laws 9
............................................................................................................................................................. 0thei Public Laws 1u
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! '8F636C5 19@ %5=6@5935 GG
................................................................................................................................................................................ Bomicile 11
.............................................................................................................................................................................. Resiuence 12
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! H(%"/'")$"&#: "# ?,%/&#-I -)$"&#/ #$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! H;26=@634689: H;26=@634689 /6FJC636452 K $522648261C )8FJ545935 GL
.................................................................................................................................... Paities Within the }uiisuiction 14
.................................................................................................................................. Paities 0utsiue the }uiisuiction 1S
.................................................................................................. }uiisuictional anu Nateiial Facts anu Eviuence 17
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! '6=3254689: M82;F #89N)89>59659= GE
.......................................................................................................................................................... Stay of Pioceeuings 18
........................................................................................................................................................ Anti-Suit Injunctions 21
...................................................................................................................................... }uiisuiction Selecting Clauses 22
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )C1== -34689= OP
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %,)&+#"$"&# -#' ,#M&%),I,#$: "# ?,%/&#-I H('+I,#$/ %$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?53;9612D H;@QF594= OL
......................................................................................................................................... Finality anu Conclusiveness 2S
.................................................................................................................... }uiisuiction in the Inteinational Sense 2S
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #89N?53;9612D H;@QF594= OR
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! '5S5935= OE
.................................................................................................................................................. The Exclusionaiy Rules 28
................................................................................................................................ Contiaiy to Foium Public Policy 29
.......................................................................................................................................... No Befence of Eiioi of Law 29
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /414;482D %5Q6F5= OT
.................................................................................................................................................... }uugments anu 0iueis 29
................................................................................................................................................................. Aibitial Awaius S1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )C1== -34689= PO
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! H(%"/'")$"&#: "# %,I -)$"&#/ &&
.................................................................................................................................................... The Nocambique Rule SS
........................................................................................................................ Exceptions to the Nocambique Rule SS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %,)&+#"$"&# -#' ,#M&%),I,#$: "# %,I H('+I,#$/ &$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )U&"), &M .-V &!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %59>86 W 405 "936@5941C X;5=4689 PY
.................................................................................................................................................................................... Renvoi SS
.......................................................................................................................................................... Inciuental Question S8
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I12261Q5 PT
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! $824= LG
............................................................................................................................................................. The 0iuinaiy Rule 41
................................................................................................................................. Exceptions to the 0iuinaiy Rule 41
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )8942134= LO
................................................................................................................................................................. The Piopei Law 4S
............................................................................................................................................................................. Foimation 44
........................................................................................................................................................................... Foimalities 4S
................................................................................................................................................................................. Capacity 4S
............................................................................................................ Illegality: Rules of Nanuatoiy Application 46
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (9Z;=4 ,92630F594 LR
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?28J524D LE
................................................................................................................................................................ Chaiacteiization 48
............................................................................................................................................................................ Succession 48
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -??,#'"[ -: &\,%\",V W )U,)]."/$ $8
............................................................................................................................................................................... 0veiview 49
................................................................................................................................................................................ Checklist Su
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -??,#'"[ ^: U"/$&%")-. &($."#,: H(%"/'")$"&# !&
.............................................................................................. }uiisuiction Simplicitei Teiiitoiial Competence SS
.......................................................................................................................... Biscietion: Foium Non-Conveniens S4
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -??,#'"[ ): "I?&%$-#$ )-/,/ !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! +59521C )89=6@5214689= YY
......................................................................................................................................... Tolofson v }ensen 1994 SCC SS
........................................... Inteinational Association of Science anu Technology v Bamza 199S ABCA S6
..... Bumpei Bevelopment Coipoiation v. Commissionei of Police foi the Netiopolis 1991 0KCA S7
....................................... Success Inteinational Inc v Enviionmental Expoit Inteinational 199S 0NSC S8
................................................................................................................................ Naiaji v Shelbouine 2u11 0KQB S8
.................................................................................................................................. Buntington v Attiil 189S 0KPC S9
...................................................................................................... 0niteu States of Ameiica v Baiuen 196S SCC 6u
.................................................................................................................................... Stiingam v Bubois 1992 ABCA 6u
................................................................................................................ Society of Lloyu's v Neinzei 2uu1 0NCA 61
............................................................................ Kuwait Aiiways Coipoiation. v Iiaqi Aiiways Co. 2uu2 BL 62
................................................................................................................................. 0niteu States v Ivey 199S 0NSC 6S
................................................. uoveinment of Islamic Republic of Iian v Baiakat ualleiies 2uu2 0KCA 64
........................................................................................ Piesiuent of Equatoiial uuinea v. Logo Ltu. 2uu6 0K 64
.......................................................................................................................................... Agulian v Cyganik 2uu6 0K 64
........................................................................................................................................ Re 0iquhait Estate 199u BC 6S
..................................................................................................... National Tiust Company Ltu. v Ebio 19S4 BC 6S
............................................................................................................................. Auueison v Auueison 1987 ABCA 6S
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! H;26=@634689: "9 ?52=891F -34689= AA
........................................................................................................ Nahaiani of Baioua v. Wiluenstein 1972 0K 66
............................................................................................. Noiguaiu Investments Ltu v Be Savoye 199u SCC 66
................................................................................................... Noian v Pyle National (Canaua) Ltu 197S SCC 68
.............................................................................................................................. Nuscutt v Couicelles 2uu2 0NCA 7u
...................................................................... Spai Aeiospace Ltu v Nobile Satellite Coipoiation 2uu2 SCC 71
....................................................................................................................................... Coutu v uauthiei 2uu6 NBCA 71
............................................................................................ Stanway v Wyeth Phaimaceuticals Inc 2uu9 BCCA 72
...................................................................................................................... *Club Resoits v van Bieua 2u12 SCC* 7S
..................................................................... Au Aimeno Nines anu Nineials v Newmont uolu 2uuu BCCA 76
..................................................... NT0 Naintenance Canaua Ltu v Kuehne & Nagel Int'l Ltu 2uu7 BCCA 77
..................................................................................................................................... Atlantic Stai Case 1974 0KBL 77
............................................................................................................... NacShannon v Rockwaie ulass Ltu 1978 77
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
2
.......................................................................................... Spiliaua Naiitime Coip v Cansulex Ltu 1986 0KBL 77
..................................................................................................................... Castanho v Biown & Root 198u 0KBL 79
....................................... Societe National Inuustiielle Aeiospatiale (SNIA) v Lee Kui }ak 1987 0K PC 8u
..................................................................................................... Aiibus Inuustiie uIE v Patel et al 1998 0K BL 82
............................................................................................................ Amchem Piouucts Inc v BCWCB 199S SCC 8S
....................................................................................................... Young v Tyco Int'l of Canaua Ltu 2uu8 0NCA 87
................................................................................................ Lloyu's 0nueiwiiteis v Cominco Ltu 2uu7 BCCA 88
......................................................................... Teck Cominco Netals Ltu v Lloyu's 0nueiwiiteis 2uu9 SCC 91
................................................................................................. Club Resoits Ltu v Noigan van Bieua 2u12 SCC 92
................................................................................................... ZI Pompey Inuustiie v. EC0-Line Nv 2uuS SCC 9S
... Nomentous.ca Coip v Canauian Ameiican Association of Piofessional Baseball Ltu 2u12 SCC 9S
................................................................................................ viiofoice Systems Inc v R&B Capital 2u11 BCCA 96
............................................................................................................. Pieyman v Ayus Technologies 2u12 BCCA 96
........................................................................................................ Baiiington v Bow Coining Coip 2uuu BCCA 97
.......................................................................................................................................... Waiu v Canaua 2uu7 NBCA 97
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %538Q964689 19@ ,9S8235F594: "9 ?52=891F H;@QF594= TE
....................................................................................................................................... Nouvion v Fieeman 1889 BL 98
.................................................................................................................................... Foibes v Simmons 1914 ABSC 98
.................................................................................... Fiist National Bank of Bouston v Bouston 199u BCCA 98
............................................................................................................................................ Clinton v Foiu 1982 0NCA 99
.............................................................. Niu-0hio Impoiteu Cai Co v Tii-K Investments Ltu 199S BCCA 1uu
.......................................................................................... Noiguaiu Investments Ltu v Be Savoye 199u SCC 1u1
........................................................................................................................................ Beals v Saluanha 2uuS SCC 1u2
............................................................................................................................... Biaintech v Kostiuk 1999 BCCA 1u4
....................................................................... New Cap Reinsuiance Coipoiation v A E uiant 2u12 0KSC 1uS
........................................................................................................................ Pio Swing Inc v Elta uolf 2uu6 SCC 1uS
........................................................................................................................................ Beals v Saluhana 2uuS SCC 1u6
................................................................................................................................................... Lang case 2u1u BCCA 1u7
........................................................................................................................................ Beals v Saluhana 2uuS SCC 1u8
....................................................................................................................................... uouuaiu v uiay 187u 0KBL 1u9
................................................................................................ Cuiiie v NacBonalu's Restauiants 2uuS 0NCA 1u9
................................................................................................ Cential uuaianty Tiust v Be Luca 199S NWTR 11u
........................................................................................................... Re Caiiick Estates anu Young 1987 SKCA 11u
......................................................................................................................... 0wen v Rocketinfo Inc 2uu8 BCCA 111
......................................................................................................................... Schietei v uasmac Inc 1992 0NCA 111
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! H;26=@634689: "9 %5F -34689= GGL
......................................................... Biitish South Afiica Co v Companhia ue Nocambique 189S 0KBL 114
................................................................................................ Bespeiiues Botels Ltu v Nuftizaue 1979 0KBL 114
........................................................................................................................................ uouley v Coles 1988 0NBC 11S
........................................................................................................................................... Waiu v Coffin 1972 NBSC 11S
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %538Q964689 19@ ,9S8235F594: "9 %5F H;@QF594= GGA
............................................................................................................................................. Buke v Anulei 19S2 SCC 116
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )08635 8S .1_ GGE
.......................................................................................... Taskanowska v Taskanowski 19S7 Piobate 0KCA 118
........................................... Neilson v 0veiseas Piojects Coipoiation of victoiia Ltu 2uuS Aus (BCA) 119
...................................................................................................................................... Tezcan v Tezcan 1992 BCCA 12u
...................................................................................................................................... Schwebel v 0ngai 196S SCC 12u
......................................................................................................................................... Biook v Biook 1891 0KBL 122
........................................................................................................................................ Canaua v Naiwal 199u FCA 124
.................................................................................................................................... Sangha v Nanuei 198S BCSC 124
...................................................................................................................................... Buuson v Leigh 2uu9 0KBC 12S
............................................................................................................. English Spinstei anu Egyptian Nan Case 126
.................................................................................................................................................. Byue v Byue 1866 0K 126
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S
....................................................................... veivaeke v Smith 198S 0KBL: the pimp anu the piostitute 126
....................................................................................................................................... Tolofson v }ensen 1994 SCC 127
................................................................................................................................ Someis v Fouiniei 2uuu 0NCA 128
......................................................................................................................... Banio Coipoiation Case 2u12 SCC 129
.............................................................................................................. vita Foous v 0nus Shipping 19S9 0KPC 1Su
...................................................................... Richaiuson Inteinational Ltu v Nys Chikhacheva 2uu2 FCA 1SS
.................................................. Impeiial Life Assuiance Company of Canaua v Colmenaies 1967 SCC 1S4
................................................................. Amin Rasheeu Shipping Coip v Kuwait Insuiance 1984 0KBL 1SS
.................................................................................................................... Nillei v. Wentwoith(.) Estates 0KBL 1S6
....................................................................................................................... Nackenuei v Feluia Au 1967 0KCA 1S7
............................................. Albeko Schuhmaschinen Au v Kamboiian Shoe Nachine Co 1961 0KCA 1S8
............................................................................................................................................. The Paiouth 1982 0KCA 1S9
.............................................................................................................. uieenshielus Inc. v }ohnson 1981 ABQB 1S9
............................................................................................................................. Naiaji v Shelbouine 2u11 0KQB 14u
.............................................................................................................. vita Foous v 0nus Shipping 19S9 0KPC 141
.................................................... uillespie Nanagement Coipoiation v Teiiace Piopeities 1989 BCCA 141
......................................... Avenue Piopeities Ltu. v Fiist City Bevelopment Coipoiation 1986 BCCA 142
.................................................................................................................................. Peaison v Boliuen 2uu2 BCCA 144
........................................................................................... Bicey Rule 2Su: choice of law iule foi iestitution 146
................................................................................................................ Chiistophei v Zimmeiman 2uuu BCCA 146
......................... Nineia Aguiline Aigentina SA v INA Exploiation Inc 2uu6 BCSC aff'u 2uu7 BCCA 146
............................................................................................ Bogg v Piovincial Tax Commissionei 1941 SKCA 147
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -??,#'"[ ': "I?&%$-#$ /$-$($&%` ?%&\"/"&#/ #!9
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! )H?$-: )8;24 H;26=@634689 $219=S52 19@ ?28355@69Q= -34 GYa
....................................................................................................................... C}PTA s. S: Pioceeuings in a Peison 1Su
.................................................................................................... C}PTA s. 1u: Real anu substantial connection 1S1
....................................................... C}PTA s. 11: Biscietion as to the exeicise of teiiitoiial competence 1SS
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ,9S8235F594 8S )191@619 H;@QF594= 19@ '53255= -34 GYL
.............................................................................................. EC}BA s. 1: Befinition of a "Canauian juugment" 1S4
.............................................................................................................. EC}BA s. 6(S): Blinu full faith anu cieuit 1SS
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
4
"#$%&'()$"&#
M8;9@146891C ?26936JC5=
Conflicts cases aie cases which have a S8256Q9 5C5F594 in them (!"#$%&'( *'+,-$#$ ".-$# .-*' /0). Conflicts
of law iules aie an exception to the concept of 4522648261C =8>5256Q94D.
The cuiient explanation foi the continueu existence of conflicts iules: it uoesn't seem faii not to - we neeu to
uo it! The SCC (1$!. ,%.-"2. * .-$"#+ *!.$# .-$ 34$#%5*' 67$8. "! #%&-.89 .-$"#+ :#";$< ." 7$ 1"&%5*11+ %4:"88%71$)
ueciueu on the concept of 38F64D: polite, self-inteiesteu iespect foi othei legal systems - it is basically the
faiiness aigument. In ceitain ciicumstances, it is Z;=4 19@ 26Q04 to apply a foieign iule of law. So we uon't
have a ieally goou ieason, othei than S16295== 19@ Z;=4635 48 405 J12465=, foi conflicts of law iules, but we uo
it anyway.
$DJ631C X;5=4689=
1. Wheie uo I biing my action.
2. Will the couit take juiisuiction.
S. What law will the couit apply.
4. Will the juiisuiction wheie the paity has substantial assets (if not the same as the juiisuiction wheie
action is biought) iecognize anu enfoice a juugment against that paity.
Note: =%5$+> ?"##%8 *'< 0"11%'8 on the Conflict of Laws is the BIBLE
$0255 +59521C )89=6@5214689=
You must *1,*+8 consiuei these - can aiise in juiisuiction, choice of law, anu iecognition anu enfoicement
1. )012134526714689
! Issues: Bow to chaiacteiize. What to chaiacteiize. Bow uo we go about the piocess.
! 0ne specific type of chaiacteiization: substance vs. pioceuuie
2. ,B3C;=68912D %;C5=
! You can peisuaue a couit not to apply an otheiwise applicable law if it is one which falls into one
of the categoiies of exclusionaiy iules
S. '8F636C5 W %5=6@5935
! Known as connecting factois - they aie connections between the paity anu the juiisuiction
! Foi puiposes of taking juiisuiction, oi puiposes of choice of law, uomicile is a bit esoteiic,
iesiuence is veiy stiaightfoiwaiu - howevei, uomicile is still a veiy impoitant connecting factoi
&4052 #845=
@".$( In oiuei to piove foieign law in the couit, common law iequiies expeit eviuence. Foieign law is a
question of fact in the foium couit: so it must be pleaueu anu pioven to the satisfaction of the couit.
!" $%&'(")* 134689 means an action between peisons to ueteimine J26>145 26Q04= between the plaintiff anu
the uefenuant. In peisonam actions can iesult in a J53;9612D Z;@QF594 (money juugment) oi a 989N
J53;9612D Z;@QF594 (injunctions, specific peifoimance, etc. - equitable juugment).
!" &%* 134689 ueteimines the statustitle to a thing. Nost of what we aie talking about aie %' #$4 juugments
in cases uealing with 464C5 to piopeity (movable oi immovable). When we ueteimine title to piopeity, it
shoulu be goou against the woilu (i.e. it shoulu be iecognizeu anywheie in the woilu).
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S
+,#,%-. )&#/"',%-$"&#/
)U-%-)$,%"b-$"&#: /(^/$-#), \/ ?%&),'(%,
Chaiacteiization is a piocess that happens at vaiious stages in a conflicts action. Theie aie two options in
teims of chaiacteiization: (1) Bow uoes the foieign juiisuiction chaiacteiize its own iule (1$A 5*28*$).
(2) We'll ueciue foi ouiselves (1$A !"#%).
Chaiacteiization is )+,)-' @895 13382@69Q 48 405 C1_ 8S 405 S82;F (1$A !"#%) because if you iely on the
foieign juiisuiction's chaiacteiization of its own law, then you will have 6945291C 69389=6=4593D 69 405 S82;F
(./"01"20(" 3 400&1++ GETP (]?), "@B 8*+8 %.C8 * :$'*1 1*,9 5*8$). The foium may 5"'8%<$# (anu it might be
veiy weighty) but is not 7"2'< by the chaiacteiization of a law by the 1$A 5*28*$.
,B35J4689: 3012134526714689 8S J28J524D: the foium will uefei absolutely to the legal system wheie the
piopeity is locateu (accoiuing to its own law, 1$A !"#%) as to how that piopeity shoulu be chaiacteiizeu.
/;<=41935 >= ?2835@;25
0ne specific type of chaiacteiization is substance vs pioceuuie: c"= 406= C1_ =;<=41946>5 82 J2835@;21Cde
You have to 389=6@52 J2835@;25 2;C5= any time you aie consiueiing ,-$#$ ." 1%.%&*.$. You want to think
about not just the applicable substantive law to youi action, but also the pioceuuie of the ielevant
juiisuiction.
,>52D 38;24 ;=5= 64= (," J2835@;21C 2;C5= anu pioceuuie is not unifoim in eveiy juiisuiction. Pioceuuial
iules of uiffeient juiisuictions may pioviue auvantages oi uisauvantages. D"# $A*4:1$> 34$#%5*' <%85";$#+
:#"5$88 %8 !*# 4"#$ &$'$#"28 .-*' .-$ 0*'*<%*' <%85";$#+ :#"5$88 8" .-%8 %8 * :#*5.%5*1 5"'8%<$#*.%"' ." .*E$ %'."
*55"2'.F
@".$( $;%<$'5$ #21$8 *#$ *14"8. *1,*+8 5-*#*5.$#%G$< *8 :#"5$<2#*1F 0"2#.8 <"'C. ,*'. ." 1$*#' *11 *7"2. ".-$#
H2#%8<%5.%"'8C $;%<$'5$ #21$8 ,-$' .-$+ *#$ -$*#%'& * 5*8$F
This chaiacteiization issue, in teims of substance vs pioceuuie is only ielevant if the substantive law to be
applieu on the meiits is going to be a foieign law (foieign 1$A 5*28*$).
Theie is no cleai scientific, absolutely black anu white uefinition of iules of pioceuuie vs iules of substance -
it is a mattei of aigument anu peisuasion, baseu paitly on pieceuent anu uefinitely baseu on the piagmatic
appioach in 5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%"F
The 8C@ @6=46934689 <54_559 =;<=41946>5 19@ J2835@;21C 2;C5= is that substantive iules ueal with the
iights anu pioceuuial iules ueal with the iemeuy, but you can't have a iemeuy without a iight, so this is not a
veiy easy uefinition.
You can piobably aigue that 5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%" 254069f= 405 3012134526714689 J2835==, not only foi
limitation peiious, but foi all allegeuly pioceuuial iules.
Accoiuing to 5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%"8 we now take a J21QF1463 1JJ28130 48 3012134526714689. What is the basis
foi the substance vs. pioceuuie iule. The ieason foi couits to apply theii own pioceuuial iules is foi the
convenience of the couit. So if theie is no inconvenience involveu, you can apply the iule of the 1$A 5*28*$.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
6
."I"$-$"&# ?,%"&'/
-25 C6F6414689 J5268@= =;<=41946>5 82 J2835@;21Cd (5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%" GTTL /)))
5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%" (*55%<$'. %' IJ> /0 :1*%'.%!!> 1%4%.*.%"' :$#%"< "! IJ K +$*#> /0 L +$*#8) iethinks the
chaiacteiization piocess foi limitation peiious (oi you can aigue, moie geneially, foi all allegeuly pioceuuial
iules), but 406= 31=5 6= 3524169CD <69@69Q _640 25=J534 48 C6F6414689 J5268@=!
Limitation peiious aie *#7%.#*#+ (although they have policy ieasons behinu them) so theie is no
inconvenience in using a uiffeient limitation peiiou - you may not like the faiiness of the iesult, but it is
puiely an aibitiaiy peiiou of time. /8 405 ^) 38;24 319 1JJCD _06305>52 C6F6414689 J5268@ 64 4069f= 6=
F825 Z;=4 19@ 389>596594!
It is piobably faii to say that these uays, 40525 6= 1 <61= )2)1"'0 3012134526769Q S82;F 2;C5= 1= J2835@;21C
2;C5= (in common law Canaua). The moie of youi own iules you apply in a case in which you have ueciueu to
apply the law of some othei juiisuiction, the moie 198F1C8;= the piouuct you get - it might be faii, but its
neithei ouis noi theiis. So, if you have ueciueu to apply the law of some othei juiisuiction to the meiits of the
case, theie is a logic to applying as much of theii law as is convenient. /8: 6S 69 @8;<4g D8; 301213452675 1=
=;<=41946>5g 984 J2835@;21C!
&$U,% ]"#'/ &M %(.,/
'1F1Q5=
U51@= 8S @1F1Q5 aie substantive, but h;1946i6314689 of uamages aie pioceuuial.
MA*4:1$( *55%<$'. %' 0*1%!"#'%*> 1%.%&*.%"' %' /0 N-*. <*4*&$8 5*' .-$ :1*%'.%!! 51*%4 O$AF :*%' *'< 82!!$#%'&>
:2'%.%;$> $.5FPQ R 0*1%!"#'%* 1*, O1$A 5*28*$P S", 425- ,%11 +"2 &$. !"# .-"8$ <*4*&$8Q R /0 1*, O1$A !"#%P
)1J1364DK.5Q1C /414;= 8S 1 ?124D
$05 C5Q1C =414;= 8S 1 S8256Q9 J124D @5J59@= ;J89 64= (," C1_ (this is a foium iecognition iule, which is a
conflicts iule - comity iequiies this, it iequiies us to look outwaiu). If an entity has status to sue anu be sueu
by its home law, then we will iecognize them as having status heie (!"0+ 4''" (6 9:1%":% )"; 5%:< 3 .)*=)
GTTY -^)-). The .)*=) case illustiates how the foium can extenu its foium pioceuuial iules anu
uefinitions using a iecognition iule.
%;695@ 45FJC5 69 "9@61: The English Couit of Appeal in >/*$%& ?%3%+($*%"0 GTTG (])- useu the exact
same piocess as the ABCA in .)*=): In ueciuing whethei a iuineu temple in Inuia hau status to suebe sueu
act as inteivenei in an action, the couit lookeu at whethei the temple woulu have capacity to sue in Inuia, its
home juiisuiction (thiough expeit eviuence). Suie enough, in Inuian law (technically Binuu law), a iuineu
temple <"$8 have status to sue anu be sueu.
%5 =419@69Q 8S 1 S8256Q9 382J8214689 (9/::%'' !"0%&")01(")+ GTTY &#/)): An 0ntaiio iule iestiicts foieign
coipoiations fiom biinging ceitain actions unless they weie iegisteieu in 0ntaiio. NY company biings an
action against the 0N company in 0ntaiio. Befence iaiseu by 0N company: NY company hau no status to sue
in 0ntaiio because it was not iegisteieu in 0ntaiio (.-%8 %8 * :#"5$<2#*1 #21$ so the 0ntaiio iule woulu apply -
1$A !"#%). .%+;: Accoiuing to 0ntaiio statute anu common law uefinition, the NY company has to be iegisteieu
in 0ntaiio if it is caiiying on business in 0ntaiio. The NY company ,*8 caiiying on business in 0ntaiio - it
hau an office heie, it hau employees, etc. (inteipietation anu application of a paiticulai pioceuuial iule).
)8942134 S82F1C64DKC6F6414689 J5268@K31J 89 @1F1Q5= (@)&)A1 3 9<%+B(/&"% OaGG (]X^g %'H2#$< 8"55$#
:1*+$# 82$8 '$&1%&$'. TI 82#&$"' %' .-$ TJ): Issues: (1) Inuiana law iequiies that if you want to sue in contiact
against a uoctoi, you have to have a signeu, wiitten contiact (2) Inuiana limitations peiiou (S) Inuiana hau a
cap on uamages. .%+;: All of these issues weie saiu to be pioceuuial, theiefoie the English couit uiun't have to
pay attention to them, so the contiact action pioceeueu.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
7
,[).(/"&#-%` %(.,/
@".$( $A5128%"'*#+ #21$8 *18" #$U2%#$ 5-*#*5.$#%G*.%"'
The exclusionaiy iules apply both at the choice of law stage in a conflicts case *'< in connection with
iecognition anu enfoicement actions.
/;FF12D: J;<C63 J8C63D is easy to iaise though it may oi may not succeeu because it ieally uoes have to be a
foieign law which offenus foium piinciples of faiiness anu justice J591C C1_ is easy 25>59;5 C1_ is
easy J;<C63 C1_ - goou luck.
?(^.") ?&.")`
C/+% DE F/B+1: F(+1:- GH:+/'1(")&- C/+% I?1:%-J
English couits |5*' #$*<( 0*'*<%*' 5"2#.8j will not enfoice oi iecognize a iight, powei, capacity, uisability, oi
legal ielationship aiising unuei the law of a foieign countiy if the enfoicement oi iecognition of such law
woulu be 69389=6=4594 _640 405 S;9@1F5941C J;<C63 J8C63D of English law |5*' #$*<( 0*'*<%*' 1*,j.
@".$( It is the funuamental public policy of the M&%(I (the couit wheie the action is taking place) that
constitutes the basis foi this iule.
The public policy exclusionaiy iule is a last-uitch, iesiuual uiscietion that eveiy couit in the woilu keeps foi
itself. It is a 91228_CD @5i695@ 5B3C;=68912D 2;C5 _640 1 =42634 45=4: It must be a foieign law (oi foieign
juugment) which tuins the stomach of the juuges in the couit, i.e. they finu the foieign law 8" #$:218%;$, that
they cannot beai to apply it. It offenus "some funuamental piinciple of justice, some pievalent conception of
goou moials, a ueep-iooteu tiauition of the foium" (9(:1%0- (6 K+(-;L' 3 M%1"=%& OaaG &#)-).
This uefence is supposeu to be iestiicteu to the 3894594 8S 405 S8256Q9 C1_g 984 405 25=;C4 - it is not
supposeu to be a uefence because we finu the iesult of the application to be unfaii. You can make the
aigument, it has been accepteu befoie, but uon't iest youi case on it; it is a long shot.
/38J5 8S J;<C63 J8C63D was extenueu by English BL to incluue iC1Q2194KQ28== >68C14689= 8S 694529146891C
C1_ as pait of its foium public policy (N/,)10 41&,)-'O 3 !&)P1 41&,)-' OaaO U.g '". * -24*' #%&-.8
;%"1*.%"'> 72. .-$ 8$%G2#$ *'< *88%4%1*.%"' "! J2,*%.% :1*'$8 ,$#$ V1*&#*'. ;%"1*.%"'8 "! #21$8 "! %'.$#'*.%"'*1 1*,
"! !2'<*4$'.*1 %4:"#.*'5$).
The aigument was iejecteu that when theie is an act of state involveu, the public policy exception is limiteu to
a bieach of human iights. "uioss infiingements of human iights aie one instance, anu an impoitant instance,
of such a piovision. But the piinciple cannot be confineu to one paiticulai categoiy of unacceptable laws.
.1_= F1D <5 S;9@1F5941CCD ;91335J41<C5 S82 251=89= 84052 4019 0;F19 26Q04= >68C14689=!"
The public policy exclusionaiy iule is fiequently invokeu; its a shot-gun appioach - you've tiieu eveiything,
you might as well tiy this one too. @".$ -",$;$#: In Canaua, the juuges aien't awaie of the veiy naiiow
uefinition of the public policy exclusionaiy iule - so the application of it is not teiiibly consistent.
@".$: public policy is always changing - what once upon a time was contiaiy to public policy may not be now
(ex. gambling was once consiueieu to be ciiminal anu immoial).
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
8
?,#-. .-V/
C/+% QE F%")+ K),8 C%3%"/% K), R S0<%& F/B+1: K), I?1:%-J
English couits |5*' #$*<( 0*'*<%*' 5"2#.8j have no juiisuiction to enteitain an action:
(a) foi the enfoicement, eithei @62534CD oi 69@62534CD of a J591C, ievenue, oi othei public law of a
foieign State; oi
(b) founueu upon an act of state.
#^: '62534 2538Q964689 (5-"%5$ "! 1*, 5"'.$A.) will occui if the foium couit ueciues not to apply the law of
anothei foieign juiisuiction to the meiits of a case (1$A 5*28*$) "9@62534 2538Q964689 (#$5"&'%.%"' *'<
$'!"#5$4$'. "! * !"#$%&' H2<&4$'.) will occui if a juiisuiction ueciues not to iecognize anu enfoice the
juugment of anothei juiisuiction because it is baseu on a law of that foieign juiisuiction which is contiaiy to
the public policy of the foium (you have to look thiough the juugment to what law it is baseu on).
Couits will not apply a foieign law which is chaiacteiizeu as penal (?1:%- C/+% QI)J8 ./"01"20(" 3 400&1++
GETP (]?)). A "J591C C1_e involves a pioceeuing in the natuie of a suit by the state whose law has been
infiingeu, by the state, by an officei of the state, oi by a membei of the public in the chaiactei of a common
infoimei (./"01"20(" 3 400&1++). A pioceeuing, in oiuei to come within the scope of the iule, must be in the
914;25 8S 1 =;64 69 S1>8;2 8S 405 =4145 _08=5 C1_ 01= <559 69S269Q5@!
./"01"20(" 3 400&1++: W@ = #*%8$8 <$!$'5$ .-*. .-$ @B 1*, "' ,-%5- .-$ @B H2<&4$'. ,*8 7*8$< ,*8 * :$'*1
1*,> TJ 5"2#. O!"# W@P <$5%<$8> *::1+%'& .-*. <$V%'%.%"' ." .-$ !*5.8 "! .-%8 5*8$> .-*. %. ,*8 '". * 8.*.$ *5.%"'> %.
,*8 *' *5.%"' !"# 5"4:$'8*.%"'X<*4*&$8 7+ 8"4$"'$ ,-" %8 7$%'& 4%81$<.
@".$( .-%8 %8 '". *' $A5128%"'*#+ #21$ .-*. +"2 *#$ 1%E$1+ 7$ *71$ ." %';"E$ "!.$' 8255$88!211+F
%,\,#(, .-V/
C/+% QE F%")+ K),8 C%3%"/% K), R S0<%& F/B+1: K), I?1:%-J
English couits |5*' #$*<( 0*'*<%*' 5"2#.8j have no juiisuiction to enteitain an action:
(a) foi the enfoicement, eithei @62534CD oi 69@62534CD of a penal, 25>59;5, oi othei public law of a
foieign State; oi
(b) founueu upon an act of state.
Couits will not apply a foieign law which is chaiacteiizeu as ievenue law (?1:%- C/+% QI)J8 T94 3 .)&;%"
GTAP /))). "%5>59;5" means all foims of taxation at any level of goveinment but theie aie some cases wheie
the classification is not quite so obvious because it is not a stiaight-foiwaiu tax.
The ievenue law exclusionaiy iule is not usually iaiseu because the state itself is tiying to collect taxes - no
state is stupiu enough to uo that (except the Canauian goveinment conceining tobacco taxes). The ievenue
law exclusionaiy iule is usually iaiseu because someone has paiu taxes anu is seeking ieimbuisement
(90&1"2)* 3 ?/B(1' GTTO -^)-, .-$ !*5. .-*. %. ,*8 * 7*'E> '". .-$ 8.*.$> %8 %##$1$;*'.)
90&1"2)* 3 ?/B(1'E Executoi (valley Bank of 0igeon) of Aiizona-uomicileu ueceaseu wants to sell AB faim
(which was left to ueceaseu's niece) in oiuei to ieimbuise itself foi taxes paiu. ABCA applieu (/- > U12@59.
U5C@: this is inuiiect enfoicement of a foieign ievenue law so it cannot be enfoiceu in Canaua.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
9
&$U,% ?(^.") .-V/
C/+% QE F%")+ K),8 C%3%"/% K), R S0<%& F/B+1: K), I?1:%-J
English couits |5*' #$*<( 0*'*<%*' 5"2#.8j have no juiisuiction to enteitain an action:
(a) foi the enfoicement, eithei @62534CD oi 69@62534CD of a penal, ievenue, oi 84052 J;<C63 C1_ of a
foieign State; oi
(b) founueu upon an act of state.
In common law countiies, we uon't oiuinaiily uiviue oui laws into public laws anu piivate laws; this is
piobably one of the ieasons the classification of the public law exception is so uifficult. 0iiginally, Bicey anu
Noiiis iefeiieu to penal laws, ievenue laws, oi othei political laws, eventually the teim "political laws" was
changeu to "public laws".
"?;<C63 C1_" is uefineu as all those iules (which aien't penal oi ievenue) enfoiceu as "an asseition of the
authoiity of the cential oi local goveinment" (?1:%-). In iecent English uecisions, they have talkeu about
asseitions of soveieign iights - it is veiy uifficult to uefine the public law categoiy moie closely than that.
$05 ,9QC6=0 38;24 01= @5i695@ cJ;<C63 C1_e as one that is seeking to enfoice goveinmental inteiests in
contiast to a law that cieates peisonal iights to the soveieign (!&)" 3 >)&)U)0 OaaO (])-). Even if the
claims aie fiameu in piivate law actions, if they aie uesigneu to piomote soveieign state inteiests, the public
law exclusionaiy iule will apply - the couit will look thiough the foim to the substance of the claim
(GP/)0(&1)+ V/1"%) 3 K(2( OaaA (]).
!&)" 3 >)&)U)0E Iian attempting to ieclaim antiquities fiom Baiakat (a galleiy) who saiu it piopeily bought
the antiquities (cultuial piopeity ieclamation). U5C@: the Iianian law opeiateu to vest title in the state;
theiefoie, it is a peisonal iights piovision, the "othei public law" exclusion was helu N0T to be applicable.
GP/)0(&1)+ V/1"%) 3 K(2(E Bamages claimeu foi the costs involveu in putting uown a coup attempt, cost of
feeuing piisoneis, cost of foou foi suspecteu membeis, cost of meuical tieatment, etc. anu uamages foi
emotional uistiess causeu to the Piesiuent of Equatoiial uuinea foi feai of his family anu his peisonal safety.
U5C@: The toit claims weie being biought to piotect anu enfoice the soveieign public inteiest of ENu. You
can't come to Englanu anu get an injunction to stop them fiom tiying to engineei a coup, anu you can't come
to Englanu to ask foi costs foi uamages foi putting uown a coup attempt - that is a soveieign act, that is
public. So the "othei public law" exclusion WAS helu to be applicable.
/;QQ5=45@ J;<C63 C1_=: exchange contiol laws, those kinus of things, etc.
Theie is English pieceuent foi this exclusionaiy iule, so if you'ie ieally uespeiate anu you can't squeeze the
foieign law you wish the couit not to apply into the penal oi ievenue categoiy, tiy the public law exception - it
exists! It'll be fun explaining it to the couit! It shoulu not be impossible if youi facts aie iight.
@".$( !"# $A*4 :2#:"8$8> 5%.$ T"10%; 90)0%' 3 !3%- GTTY &#/) !"# .-$ :271%5 1*, $A5$:.%"'F Y. %8 *2.-"#%.+ !"#
.-$ :#":"8%.%"' .-*. .-$ $A5128%"'*#+ #21$ ;(%' %H1'0 *'< .-*. %. %8 3%&- ")&&(,F /2. +"2 <"'C. &$. 425- 4"#$
"2. "! %.F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1u
'&I")"., -#' %,/"',#),
Bomicile anu iesiuence aie concepts which seive as 389953469Q S13482= between a peison anu a paiticulai
legal system foi juiisuiction anu choice of law issues. Biffeient legal systems use uiffeient connecting factois
foi uiffeient puiposes.
/8F5 J8==6<C5 389953469Q S13482=:
1. Piesence - 4$#$> .$4:"#*#+ :#$8$'5$)
2. Resiuence - * 8.#"'&$# 5"''$5.%"' *'< 5"4$8 %' 4"#$ .-*' "'$ ;*#%$.+(
(a) actual iesiuence (b) oiuinaiy iesiuence (c) habitual iesiuence
S. Bomicile - .#*<%.%"'*11+ 28$< 7+ 5"44"' 1*, 8+8.$48
4. Nationality - .#*<%.%"'*11+ 28$< 7+ 5%;%1 1*, 8+8.$48
If you aie involveu in a case which conceins the 1JJC6314689 8S 1 =414;45 anu the statute uses the phiase
"uomicile" oi "iesiuence", the fiist thing to uo is look to see if theie is a uefinition foi uomicile oi iesiuence in
the statute. If theie is no uefinition, then you have to fall back on the common law.
'&I")".,
Bomicile becomes an issue mostly in choice of law cases (matiimonial law, succession law), not juiisuiction.
No mattei what the puipose of ueteimining uomicile, the concept of uomicile uoesn't change - it is a
consistent concept. Bomicile is 1C_1D= @5452F695@ <D 405 S82;F - the couit seizeu with juiisuiction will
always apply its own uefinition of uomicile.
All "peisons" (natuial peisons as well as legal peisons, i.e. coipoiations) have a uomicile, anu you can only
have one uomicile at a time. Bomicile comes in S vaiieties: (1) at the moment of youi biith, you acquiie a
@8F636C5 8S 826Q69 (2) until you ieach the age of majoiity, you maintain a @8F636C5 8S @5J59@593D (S) once
you ieach the age of majoiity, you acquiie 5*:*5%.+ to select a @8F636C5 8S 308635.
(1) Youi @8F636C5 8S 826Q69 uepenus on wheie youi !*.-$# was uomicileu at the moment of youi biith (BC
legislation now gives a choice between mothei oi fathei); founulings aie uomicileu wheie they aie founu. An
investigation may have to take place into the life of youi motheifathei in oiuei to ueteimine wheie they
weie uomicileu at the moment of youi biith. MM 5"44$'.( <"4%5%1$ "! "#%&%' 4*+ '". -*;$ 7$$' 4"<%V%$< 7+
1$&%81*.%"'Z 0[( !*.-$# \ 4".-$# ] !*.-$#> 4".-$# "'1+ ] 4".-$#> !"2'<1%'& ] ,-$#$ +"2 ,$#$ !"2'<F
(2) Youi @8F636C5 8S @5J59@5935 is the uomicile you have between the moment of youi biith anu youi age of
majoiity. It is <$:$'<$'. on what the paient you aie living with is uoing (#$ &$"&#*:-%5*1 1"5*.%"' \ %'.$'.%"').
(S) Youi @8F636C5 8S 308635: once you ieach the age of majoiity (19 in BC), you acquiie 5*:*5%.+ (whethei you
exeicise it oi not) to acquiie a uomicile of choice (,%11 7$ .-$ 8*4$ *8 +"2# <"4%5%1$ "! <$:$'<$'5$ 2'.%1 +"2
*5U2%#$ * '$, <"4%5%1$).
@".$( ?*##%$< ,"4$' 7$5*4$ 5*:*71$ "! "7.*%'%'& *' %'<$:$'<$'. <"4%5%1$ %' K^_` %' /0 R .-%8 4*+ 7$5"4$
#$1$;*'. %' 5*8$8 ,-$#$ %. %8 '$5$88*#+ ." <$.$#4%'$ .-$ <"4%5%1$ "! 8"4$"'$ *8 "! *' $*#1%$# :"%'. %' .%4$
Nost people acquiie a new uomicile of choice the moment they leave the olu one. But it is possible to abanuon
a uomicile of choice without acquiiing a new uomicile of choice - anu in that case youi uomicile of oiigin
ievives. To 1<19@89 D8;2 @8F636C5 8S 308635, you have to: (a) physically leave anu (b) intenu to nevei come
back.
)264636=F: If you have not acquiieu a new uomicile of choice, but you have completely iejecteu youi uomicile
of oiigin, you still ietain youi Bomicile of 0iigin. Why shoulu youi uomicile of oiigin ievive simply because
you haven't acquiieu a uomicile of choice - it may be a place you have nevei set foot in, oi it may be a countiy
that uoesn't even exist anymoie!
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
11
$0525 125 4_8 9535==12D 5C5F594= that must be establisheu to peisuaue the couit that an inuiviuual has
acquiieu a uomicile of choice, anu they F;=4 386936@5 14 '(*% J8694 69 46F5:
(1) %5=6@5935: question of simple fact. It is tieateu by the common law simply as meie, physical piesence.
(2) /4145 8S I69@: also a question of fact, but not as easy to establish.
The @5i6964689 8S c=4145 8S F69@e useu to be a naiiow one: oiiginally, the uefinition of the state of minu
necessaiy to establish uomicile iequiieu the inuiviuual to have fieely foimeu the intention of enuing his uays
in a paiticulai juiisuiction. Also: it took satisfaction of beyonu a ieasonable uoubt foi an inuiviuual to acquiie
a uomicile of choice if his uomicile of oiigin was Englanu.
$8@1D: we iequiie that the peison tiying to establish uomicile have intenueu to iesiue 69@5i69645CD in that
juiisuiction. Inuefinitely uoesn't mean to the enu of youi uays, although that woulu satisfy the test. It means
that you aie iesiuing somewheie anu D8; @89j4 01>5 1 251=891<CD 194636J145@ 19@ 3C512CD S825=559
389469Q593D 48 31;=5 D8; 48 C51>5! The stanuaiu of pioof is piobably on a balance of piobabilities.
/38J5 8S 69>5=46Q14689 69 @5452F6969Q =4145 8S F69@: you uon't just consiuei the moment in time that is
ciitical ($AF <"4%5%1$ *. .-$ 4"4$'. "! <$*.-), you have to consiuei the whole life of the inuiviuual - what was
his pattein. (42/+1)" 3 W-2)"1U OaaA (]). Typically, you get eviuence given by vaiious people anu you get
facts about his life anu you ask: uiu he foim an intention to iesiue inuefinitely anywheie. (C% T&P/<)&0
G'0)0% GTTa U)).
'8F636C5 8S 1 382J8214689 is easy to uefine: it is the juiisuiction in which it is incoipoiateu. If the conflicts
issue in a case is what law goveins the inteinal oiganization of the coipoiation - it is the law of the
coipoiation's uomicile, the law of the place wheie it is incoipoiateu
\1268;= J28J8=5@ C1_ 25S82F=: cieate new uomicile of oiigin uomicile of uepenuency iules foi chiluien
acknowleuging uiffeient types of families lunatics (i.e. mentally incompetent people) cieate
piesumptions about intention to make intention easiei to establish (iebuttable piesumptions) abolish the
ievival of youi uomicile of oiigin anu to ieplace it with the iuea that youi uomicile of choice continues until
you acquiie a new uomicile of choice.
%,/"',#),
Resiuence is a moie mouein connecting factoi anu is gaining tiaction in the common law. It is consiueieu to
be simplei anu cleaiei.
-34;1C 25=6@5935 is a little moie than meie piesence, but it is tempoiaiy piesence - not ieally useu foi much.
&2@6912D 25=6@5935 anu 01<64;1C 25=6@5935 (,-%5- *#$ "!.$' ;$#+ -*#< ." <%!!$#$'.%*.$) 125 405 4_8 <6Q
389459@52= S82 1 95_ 389953469Q S13482. They aie becoming connecting factois foi juiisuiction anu choice
of law in iecent statutes.
In BC, we use both oiuinaiy anu habitual iesiuence in uiffeient statutes. 0iuinaiy iesiuence is useu foi
juiisuictional puiposes in the 0"2#. a2#%8<%5.%"' *'< b#"5$$<%'&8 c#*'8!$# 35. (C}PTA) - the statute that
goveins juiisuiction in BC couits. Babitual iesiuence is useu in the new D*4%1+ [*, 35. conflict piovisions (ss.
1uS-1u9) - although piobably inauveitently.
%5=6@5935 1= 1 389953469Q S13482 6= =414;482D; theiefoie, the fiist thing you want to uo is see if theie is a
uefinition piovision in the applicable statute. If theie isn't, then you fall back on the common law.
Babitual iesiuence is a compiomise fosteieu by the S*&2$ 0"'!$#$'5$ "! b#%;*.$ Y'.$#'*.%"'*1 law between
civil law's "nationality" anu common law's "uomicile". It has not been uefineu in any convention oi statute -
theie is no statutoiy uefinition anu yet it is taking ovei the woilu.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
12
$0525 125 4_8 9535==12D 5C5F594= that must be establisheu foi both 82@6912D 19@ 01<64;1C 25=6@5935:
(1) ?0D=631C 25=6@5935 anu (2) "94594689!
But the balance foi iesiuence has been uelibeiately shifteu fiom uomicile. In oiuinaiyhabitual iesiuence,
694594 has been uelibeiately uownplayeu but 25=6@5935 has been enhanceu - you can't acquiie oiuinaiy
habitual iesiuence in a uay, it iequiies some uuiation (.-%8 5"21< 7$ * :#"71$4 R +"2 5*' 1"8$ %. %' * <*+> ,-$'
+"2 1$*;$> 72. +"2 5*'C. *5U2%#$ %. U2%5E1+> +"2 -*;$ ." 8:$'< 8"4$ .%4$ %' .-*. :1*5$). Ciuuely: you have to
establish that it is youi home, at least foi a limiteu peiiou of time (but theie is no minimum limit).
/38J5 8S 69>5=46Q14689 69 @5452F6969Q 25=6@5935: length of time is impoitant but not conclusive - it is the
h;1C64D 8S 25=6@5935 (4;;%&'(" 3 4;;%&'(" GTER -^)-) (unless you have something like the =%;"#5$ 35.
that says you have to be living togethei foi a ceitain peiiou of time). The couits emphasize that oiuinaiy anu
habitual iesiuence (.-$+ <" 8$$4 ." 7$ %'.$#5-*'&$*71$) is the =544C5@ J;2J8=5 8S 405 69@6>6@;1C whose
iesiuence is in issue (4;;%&'(").
"The puipose may be one oi it may be seveial, it may be specific oi geneial, all that the law iequiies is that
theie is a settleu puipose. this puipose, while settleu, may be foi a limiteu peiiou. Euucation, business oi
piofession, employment, health, family oi meiely love of the place spiing to minu as common ieasons foi
choice of iegulai aboue anu theie may well be many otheis. All that is necessaiy is that the puipose of living
in wheie one uoes has a =;Si636594 @5Q255 8S 389469;64D 48 <5 J28J52CD @5=326<5@ 1= =544C5@." (^))-
auopting language fiom English case)
'6Si63;C465= _640 25JC1369Q @8F636C5 _640 25=6@5935: (1) Some cases inuicate that it is possible to have
moie than one habitual oi oiuinaiy iesiuence concuiiently - if you have two iesiuences in two uiffeient
juiisuictions, whose law goveins. Foi juiisuiction, this is fine but foi choice of law, youi connecting factoi is
supposeu to iuentify a juiisuiction whose legal system ought to be applieu to the issue. (2) It is also possible
foi an inuiviuual to have no habitual oi oiuinaiy iesiuence (S) It is aiguable that ueteimination of iesiuence is
moie context-uepenuent than the concept of uomicile.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S
H(%"/'")$"&#: !@ FGC9S@4M -)$"&#/
@".$( 5"44"' 1*, %8 8%&'%V%5*'.1+ <%!!$#$'. !#"4 5%;%1 1*, %' .-%8 *#$* R .-$ <%85#$.%"'*#+ $1$4$'. %8 '".
8"4$.-%'& +"2 5*' *8824$ +"2 ,%11 7$ *71$ ." %';"E$ %' * 5%;%1 1*, 5"2#..
H;26=@634689 @536=689= 14 38FF89 C1_ 69>8C>5 4_8 38FJ89594=:
1. %;C5=: A/&1';1:01(" '1*$+1:10%&4522648261C 38FJ545935 - iefeis to the iules goveining juiisuiction.
In BC (anu othei C}PTA piovinces), we iefei to this as "teiiitoiial competence" not "H2#%8<%5.%"'
8%4:1%5%.$#" (simply an acknowleugement that the jaigon in the statute has changeu).
2. '6=3254689: 6(&/* "("X:("3%"1%"' - iefeis to juuicial uiscietion, it has nothing to uo with the iules.
In the juiisuictional uecision, you 1C_1D= 389=6@52 405 Z;26=@6346891C 5C5F594 i62=4 befoie you consiuei
whethei you aie the most appiopiiate foium foi the action - you can't exeicise uiscietion unless you have
juiisuiction.
In any common law juiisuiction, it is possible anu peimissible to 8<Z534 48 405 5B6=45935K405 5=41<C6=0F594
8S A/&1';1:01(" '1*$+1:10%&K4522648261C 38FJ545935 19@K82 48 69>8f5 405 @6=3254689 8S 405 38;24. You
uon't have to uo both, you can simply say: you have no juiisuiction (which is establisheu eithei by seivice on
the uefenuant %' the juiisuiction; by submission of the uefenuant (in vaiious ways); "# (in Canaua) by the
existence of a ieal anu substantial connection.
The J2835@;25 employable in each foium uepenus on the iules of the couit of that juiisuiction (1$A !"#%). Foi
the most pait, the pioceuuies foi objecting to juiisuiction simpliciteiteiiitoiial competence anu foi invoking
the uiscietion of the couit aie going to be founu in the foium's C/+%' (6 W(/&0 oi equivalent (C/+% DYXZ in BC).
The challenge is to figuie out how to object to juiisuiction unuei Rule 21-8 without somehow submitting to
the juiisuiction of the couit (.-%8 %8 * :#*5.%5*1 :#"71$4 *'< %! +"2 85#$, 2:> +"2# 51%$'. %8 <$*< %' .-$ ,*.$#).
If in a common law couit, the uefenuant uoes not object to the juiisuiction of the couit, anu uoesn't ask the
couit to exeicise any uiscietion, the couit just continues - so it is up to a paity (usually the uefenuant) to iaise
the issue (at an eaily stage) of juiisuiction anuoi uiscietion.
H(%"/'")$"&#: 7TC!9?!W5!S@ 9!MFK!W!5GC K $,%%"$&%"-. )&I?,$,#),
/;FF12D 8S _014 48 @8 6S D8; 125 69 ^): B"2C#$ * :1*%'.%!!> +"2 V%&2#$ "2. ,-" +"2 ,*'. ." 82$ *'< +"2
<%85";$# +"2# <$!$'<*'. %8 "2. "! .-$ :#";%'5$> 5*'C. 7$ 82$< %' /0( kGl look fiist to W7F54 'O Q (geneial
juiisuiction iules) kOl look to W7F54 'O Y[ (which expanus on s. S) anu tiy to finu a ciicumstance that fits youi
case kPl follow the appiopiiate pioceuuie anu get youi piocess seiveu kLl the ball is now in the uefenuant's
couit (chances aie goou that theie will be an objection to juiisuiction, teiiitoiial competence of the BC couit).
In BC, the W(/&0 7/&1';1:01(" 5&)"'6%& )"; F&(:%%;1"2' 4:0 (C}PTA, 2uu6) pioviues that it is .-$ $A5128%;$
souice of juiisuiction (teiiitoiial competence) in the piovince (W7F54 'O DIDJ). So in oiuei to biing an action
in BC, you have to satisfy the W7F54.
?-%$",/ V"$U"# $U, H(%"/'")$"&#
In BC, we ueciueu to go with the logic of M(&2/)&;, not with the expiess woius (which appaiently left the
common law M)<)&)"1 iule intact, that meie tempoiaiy physical piesence in the juiisuiction is sufficient foi
seivice). So in BC, F525 J25=5935 69 405 J28>6935 "/ #&$ =;Si636594 S82 =52>635g 19@ 40525S825 @85= 984
389=464;45 Z;26=@634689. V014 6= 25h;625@ 98_ 6= 82@6912D 25=6@5935 8S 405 @5S59@194 (W7F54 'O QI;J).
c-%8 ,*8 :#"7*71+ *18" ";$#.2#'$< !"# .-$ #$8. "! 0*'*<* 7+ \)" >&%;)> ,-%5- -$1< .-*. 4$#$ :-+8%5*1 :#$8$'5$
%8 "(0 82!V%5%$'.F /2. !"# '"'d0abc3 :#";%'5$8> .-$#$ 4%&-. 7$ 8"4$ V1$A%7%1%.+ *8 ." ,-*. YI 82!V%5%$'. !"#
H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#F W#<%'*#+ :#$8$'5$ :#"7*71+ &"$8 7$+"'< .-$ 4%'%4*1 5"'8.%.2.%"'*1 #$U2%#$4$'.F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
14
?-%$",/ &($/"', $U, H(%"/'")$"&#
The "#$%& sets out S ciicumstances in which a BC couit will have teiiitoiial competence (W7F54 'O Q).
W7F54 'O QE F&(:%%;1"2' 1" ) $%&'("
A couit has teiiitoiial competence in a pioceeuing that is biought against a peison only if:
(a) that peison is the plaintiff in anothei pioceeuing in the couit to which the pioceeuing in question is a
counteiclaim - |=;<F6==689 <D 405 JC16946SS: %! +"2 7#%'& *' *5.%"' %' /0> +"2 *#$ 8274%..%'& ." .-$
H2#%8<%5.%"' "! .-$ /0 5"2#.j
(b) uuiing the couise of the pioceeuing that peison submits to the couit's juiisuiction - |=;<F6==689 <D
405 @5S59@194: %! *. 8"4$ :"%'. %' .-$ :#"5$$<%'&> .-$ <$!$'<*'. 8274%.8> .-$ /0 5"2#. -*8 .$##%."#%*1
5"4:$.$'5$ R .-$#$ %8 '" V%'%.$ 1%8. "! ,*+8 %' ,-%5- .-$ <$!$'<*'. 5*' 8274%. ." .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"' "! .-$
5"2#.> *'< +"2 <"'C. '$$< ." %'.$'< ." 8274%.j
(c) theie is an agieement between the plaintiff anu that peison to the effect that the couit has juiisuiction
in the pioceeuing - |=;<F6==689 <D S82;FN=5C534689 3C1;=5: %! +"2 $'.$# %'." * 5"'.#*5. ,-%5- -*8 *
H2#%8<%5.%"' 8$1$5.%'& 51*28$> +"2C;$ 8274%..$< %' *<;*'5$j
(u) that peison is oiuinaiily iesiuent in Biitish Columbia at the time of the commencement of the
pioceeuing - |82@6912D 25=6@5935: .-%8 %8 * 4"<%V%$< ;$#8%"' "! .-$ .#*<%.%"'*1 7*8%8 "! 6:#$8$'5$9 !"#
H2#%8<%5.%"' O?*-*#*'%PF W#<%'*#+ #$8%<$'5$ %8 <$V%'$< %' 88F e> _> ^ !"# 5"#:"#*.%"'8> :*#.'$#8-%:8> *'<
2'%'5"#:"#*.$< *88"5%*.%"'8> #$8:$5.%;$1+j 0R
(e) theie is a ieal anu substantial connection between Biitish Columbia anu the facts on which the
pioceeuing against that peison is baseu - |251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689: *::1%$8 ,-$'$;$# +"2
-*;$ * <$!$'<*'. ,-" -*8 ." 7$ 8$#;$< "2.8%<$ "! /0F /0 ,%11 -*;$ .$##%."#%*1 5"4:$.$'5$ %! .-$#$ %8 * #$*1
*'< 8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"' 7$.,$$' /0 *'< .-$ !*5.8 "' ,-%5- .-$ :#"5$$<%'& %8 7*8$<F c-$#$ %8 *'
$A:*'<$< <$V%'%.%"' "! fO$P %' 8F Kgj
W7F54 'O Y[E C%)+ )"; '/B'0)"01)+ :(""%:01("
Without limiting the iight of the plaintiff to piove othei ciicumstances that constitute a ieal anu substantial
connection between Biitish Columbia anu the facts on which a pioceeuing is baseu, a ieal anu substantial
connection between Biitish Columbia anu those facts 6= J25=;F5@ 48 5B6=4 if the pioceeuing
(a) is biought to enfoice, asseit, ueclaie oi ueteimine piopiietaiy oi possessoiy iights oi a secuiity
inteiest in J28J524D 69 ^2646=0 )8C;F<61 that is immovable oi movable piopeity,
(b) conceins the 1@F696=4214689 8S 405 5=4145 8S 1 @5351=5@ J52=89 in ielation to
(i) immovable piopeity in Biitish Columbia of the ueceaseu peison, oi
(ii)movable piopeity anywheie of the ueceaseu peison if at the time of ueath he oi she was
oiuinaiily iesiuent in Biitish Columbia,
(c) is biought to inteipiet, iectify, set asiue oi enfoice any @55@g _6CCg 38942134 82 84052
69=42;F594 in ielation to
(i) piopeity in Biitish Columbia that is immovable oi movable piopeity, oi
(ii)movable piopeity anywheie of a ueceaseu peison who at the time of ueath was
oiuinaiily iesiuent in Biitish Columbia,
(u) is biought 1Q169=4 1 42;=455 69 25C14689 48 405 3122D69Q 8;4 8S 1 42;=4 in any of the following
ciicumstances:
(i) the tiust assets incluue piopeity in Biitish Columbia that is immovable oi movable
piopeity anu the ielief claimeu is only as to that piopeity;
(ii) that tiustee is oiuinaiily iesiuent in Biitish Columbia;
(iii)the auministiation of the tiust is piincipally caiiieu on in Biitish Columbia;
(iv)by the expiess teims of a tiust uocument, the tiust is goveineu by the law of Biitish
Columbia,
(e) conceins 38942134;1C 8<C6Q14689=, anu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S
(i) the contiactual obligations, to a substantial extent, weie to be peifoimeu in Biitish
Columbia,
(ii) by its expiess teims, the contiact is goveineu by the law of Biitish Columbia, oi
(iii)the contiact
(A) is foi the puichase of piopeity, seivices oi both, foi use othei than in the
couise of the puichasei's tiaue oi piofession, anu
(B) iesulteu fiom a solicitation of business in Biitish Columbia by oi on behalf of
the sellei,
(f) conceins 25=464;468912D 8<C6Q14689= that, to a substantial extent, aiose in Biitish Columbia,
(g) conceins 1 4824 38FF6445@ 69 ^2646=0 )8C;F<61g
(h) conceins a <;=695== 312265@ 89 69 ^2646=0 )8C;F<61,
(i) is a 3C16F S82 19 69Z;934689 oiueiing a paity to uo oi iefiain fiom uoing anything
(i) in Biitish Columbia, oi
(ii) in ielation to piopeity in Biitish Columbia that is immovable oi movable piopeity,
(j) is foi a ueteimination of the J52=891C =414;= 82 31J1364D 8S 1 J52=89 _08 6= 82@69126CD
25=6@594 in Biitish Columbia,
(k) is foi 59S8235F594 8S 1 Z;@QF594 of a couit maue in oi outsiue Biitish Columbia oi an aibitial
awaiu maue in oi outsiue Biitish Columbia, oi
(l) is foi the 2538>52D 8S 41B5= oi othei inuebteuness anu is biought by the goveinment of Biitish
Columbia oi by a local authoiity in Biitish Columbia.
W7F54 'O Y[ fleshes out s. S(e), it gives a list of 3623;F=41935= _0525 1 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 6=
J25=;F5@ 48 5B6=4. If one of the ciicumstances in s. 1u is satisfieu, theie is a 25<;441<C5 J25=;FJ4689 of
juiisuiction (though it is iaiely iebutteu). This is a goou appioach - we want oiuei, we want ceitainty (LeBell }
in W+/B C%'(&0' 3 \)" >&%;) OaGO /))).
The list in this section is 984 5B01;=46>5 (\)" >&%;)). So if you can't finu a ciicumstances in s. 1u that fits,
you can go back to s. S anu aigue that theie 6= a ieal anu substantial connection, but you have to make it out.
Extiapolating fiom the /))j= uecision in 9$)& 4%&('$):%8 the ieal anu substantial connection as enunciateu
in ?"#&2*#< 25h;625= 89CD 1 F696F1C 3899534689 - you uon't have to go as fai as M/':/00 3 W(/&:%++%'
OaaO &#)- (which set out 8 consiueiations in establishing whethei theie is a ieal anu substantial connection
foi puiposes of H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#). @".$( I:*# 3$#"8:*5$ <%<'C. 4*E$ * <$'. %' .-$ H2#8:#2<$'5$ /Tc h*'
/#$<* <%<( so the F696F1C 3899534689 6= =;Si636594 (\)" >&%;); .-$ 5"'8.%.2.%"'*1 8.*'<*#< %8 * 4%'%4*1
5"''$5.%"' 9$)& 4%&('$):% 3 M(B1+% 9)0%++10% OaaO /)), '" 4%'%424 *4"2'. "! <*4*&$ #$U2%#$< !"# #$*1 *'<
8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"'> i`g>ggg %8 "E*+). /8 69 ^)g D8; =6FJCD 01>5 48 F554 405 32645261 =54 8;4 69 )H?$-!
^))- has ueciueu 984 48 1JJCD M/':/00. The W7F54 has eclipseu the ?2852.. appioach anu piospectively,
W7F54 'O Y[ sets out the ciicumstances to consiuei anu these aie the manuatoiy (though iebuttable)
piesumptions (90)",)- 3 ]-%0< F<)&*):%/01:)+' !": OaaT ^))-). The fact is the BC couits see this as a
slam uunk: if you set out the conuitions in W7F54 'O Y[, we've got juiisuiction. It is likely to be ueteiminative.
@".$( ?2852.. %8 :#"7*71+ '", <$*< $;$#+,-$#$> $;$' %' W'.*#%" 7$5*28$ "! .-$ h*' /#$<* 5*8$F
The cases since ?"#&2*#< have establisheu that 8;2 38FF89 C1_ Z;26=@6346891C 2;C5= 125 >52D _6@5. We
allow plaintiffs to seive piocess $A H2#%8 in an extiaoiuinaiily bioau iange of ciicumstances. So the
Z;26=@634689 2;C5= aie veiy bioau, but then we use @6=3254689 to naiiow things uown - so uiscietion is a veiy
impoitant element. In the civil law system, the iules tenu to be tightei but they uo not exeicise uiscietion.
.8314689 8S 8S 1 $824
In ueciuing wheie a toit was committeu, you can use the C8314689 8S 405 4824 oi 405 '10/' 8S 405 4824 (wheie
in law uiu the toit occui). This is moie impoitant foi choice of law puiposes, because choice of law is
piemiseu on having a single locationsitus wheieas the common law juiisuiction iules aie not piemiseu on
having a single locationjuiisuiction foi a cause of action.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
16
V5 98_ 01>5 1 iC5B6<C5 1JJ28130 in ueteimining wheie a toit has been committeu - no aibitiaiy iules, no
concept (expiess oi implicit) that foi juiisuictional puiposes, theie is only one place that the toit coulu have
been committeu. We iegaiu the toit as having occuiieu in 19D Z;26=@634689 =;<=419461CCD 1SS5345@ <D 405
@5S59@194j= 1346>6465= 82 64= 389=5h;5935= 19@ 405 C1_ 8S _0630 6= C6f5CD 48 01>5 <559 69 405 251=891<C5
38945FJC14689 8S 405 J12465= (M(&)" 3 F-+% @)01(")+ GTRP /))g .-%8 ":$'$< 2: 'O Y[I2J * 7%.).
-JJCD69Q 406= 45=4 48 1 31=5 8S 3125C5== F19;S134;25: wheie a foieign uefenuant caielessly manufactuies a
piouuct in a foieign juiisuiction which then enteis into the noimal channels of tiaue anu he knows oi ought
to know both (a) that as a iesult of his caielessness a consumei may well be injuieu anu (b) it is ieasonably
foieseeable that the piouuct woulu be useu oi consumeu wheie the plaintiff useu oi consumeu it, t059 405
S82;F 69 _0630 405 JC16946SS =;SS525@ @1F1Q5 6= 59464C5@ 48 5B5236=5 Z;@6361C Z;26=@634689 ovei that
foieign uefenuant (F-+% @)01(")+, *'.%5%:*.%'& ,-*. 8278$U2$'. 5"2#.8 -*;$ 8*%<( .-$ <*4*&$ %8 :#"7*71+ .-$
4"8. %4:"#.*'. 5"4:"'$'.).
H(%"/'")$"&#-. -#' I-$,%"-. M-)$/ -#' ,\"',#),
S", +"2 &" *7"2. $8.*71%8-%'& .-$ 6,-*.F9
Bow you establish juiisuiction simpliciteiteiiitoiial competence will uepenu on what the pioceuuial iules of
the foium in which you aie biinging the action (in BC, D[Y[ W131+ C/+%' (6 W(/&0). a2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#X
teiiitoiial competence (%F$F $;$#+ 5"44"' 1*, :#";%'5$ "! 0*'*<*) is oiuinaiily going to be ueciueu befoie the
tiial, baseu on @83;F59412D 5>6@5935, D8;2 984635 8S 36>6C 3C16F, D8;2 JC51@69Q=, etc.
These uocuments shoulu pioviue the F145261C S134= establishing that the cause of action falls within one of
the ciicumstances in W7F54 'O Y[.
Bowevei, if theie is an omission of mateiial facts in the pleauings, 64 6= J8==6<C5 48 J8=646>5CD =;JJC5F594
these basic uocuments %! '$5$88*#+ with 1Si6@1>64 5>6@5935 (4&*%"( M1"%' Oaaa ^))-), howevei you
319984 ;=5 )&2/*%"0 (& '0)0%*%"0' (6 :(/"'%+ to supplement omissions of fact in the pleauings (M5T
M)1"0%")":% OaaR ^))-).
@".$( 8%'5$ .-$ K^eg8 O,-$' ,$ *7*'<"'$< .-$ $A :*#.$ *::1%5*.%"' ." 8$$E 1$*;$ ." 8$#;$ * ,#%. $A H2#%8 *'<
4";$< ." .-$ 4"#$ $!V%5%$'. 8$#;%5$ *8 "! #%&-.P> 5"2#.8 -*;$ -*< 1$88 $;%<$'5$ ." 1""E *. %! .-$#$ %8 *' "7H$5.%"' ."
H2#%8<%5.%"'F Y! .-$#$ ,*8 *' $Ad:*#.$ *::1%5*.%"'> .-$#$ ,*8 425- 4"#$ *!V%<*;%. $;%<$'5$ 8274%..$< %' *<;*'5$
7$5*28$ +"2 -*< ." :$#82*<$ .-$ 5"2#. .-*. +"2# 5*8$ !$11 ,%.-%' .-$ 5%#5248.*'5$8 *11",$<> .-*. +"2 -*< * &""<
*#&2*71$ 5*8$ "' .-$ 4$#%.8> *'< .-*. .-$ !"#24 ,*8 .-$ 4"8. *::#":#%*.$ !"#24 !"# .-$ *5.%"'> $.5F> 8" +"2 -*<
." :#"<25$ * 1". "! *!V%<*;%. $;%<$'5$F c-*. ,$'. 7+$ 7+$ ,-$' ,$ 4";$< ." 8$#;%5$ $A H2#%8 *8 "! #%&-.F I" .-$
<"524$'.8 .-*. <" $A%8. O:1$*<%'&8> $.5FP 8-"21< :#";%<$ 4*.$#%*1 !*5.8 $8.*71%8-%'& .-*. .-$ 5*28$ "! *5.%"' !*118
,%.-%' .-$ 0abc3 8F Kg 51*88$8> %8 *#&2*71$> *'< .-$ /0 %8 .-$ !"#24 5"';$'%$'8F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
17
'"/)%,$"&#: ^SCTM @S@XWS@\G@!G@9
Thiee issues aiise with iespect to uiscietion: (1) Foimulation of the uiscietionaiy piinciples (2) Relevant
factois to be consiueieu in exeicising uiscietion (S) Who beais the buiuen of pioof anu what is the quantum
(stanuaiu) of pioof.
Foi puiposes of assuming juiisuiction, Z;@6361C @6=3254689 319 <5 5B5236=5@ 69 4_8 _1D= (you have to
choose foi youi client): (1) stay of pioceeuings (most commonly useu) (2) anti-suit injunction.
In a =41D 8S J28355@69Q=, you aie asking the couit to stay its own pioceeuings (.-%8 *8824$8 .-$#$ %8 *' *5.%"'
5"44$'5$< %' .-$ !"#24). You say "this couit has no teiiitoiial competence" but you aie also asking the couit
to exeicise its uiscietion anu ueciue that it is not the most appiopiiate foium foi the action anu to 8.*+ the BC
pioceeuings. This is the BC couit contiolling its own pioceeuings.
In an 1946N=;64 69Z;934689, you aie asking the couit foi an oiuei piohibiting a paity fiom commencing oi
continuing foieign pioceeuings (.-%8 *8824$8 .-$#$ %8 *'".-$# H2#%8<%5.%"' *'< .-$ *5.%"' 5"21< 7$> "# %8 *1#$*<+
7$%'&> 7#"2&-. .-$#$). This is an equitable oiuei (in peisonam) so it iequiies the couit (the foium) to have
juiisuiction ovei the paity to be enjoineu (i.e. the plaintiff). ***@".$( 4*:<%* 4"<%V%$8 .-%8( "#<%'*#%1+> *' *'.%d
82%. %'H2'5.%"' ,%11 7$ #$8.#%5.$< ." :("01"/)01(" (6 6(&%12" $&(:%%;'F
The leauing English cases aie still ielevant because the SCC puipoits to inteipiet anu apply them in Canaua.
/$-` &M ?%&),,'"#+/
"9 ^)g 405 38FF89 C1_ 6= F8@6i65@ <D 405 )H?$-: "uiscietion" is pioviueu foi in the W7F54 'O YYO
W7F54 'O YYE ?1':&%01(" )' 0( 0<% %H%&:1'% (6 0%&&10(&1)+ :(*$%0%":%
GGkGl Aftei consiueiing 405 694525=4= 8S 405 J12465= to a pioceeuing anu 405 59@= 8S Z;=4635, a couit may
uecline to exeicise its teiiitoiial competence in the pioceeuing on the giounu that a couit of anothei state is 1
F825 appiopiiate foium in which to heai the pioceeuing - |7*8%5*11+ .-$ I5"..%8- :#%'5%:1$j
GGkOl A couit, in ueciuing the question of whethei it oi a couit outsiue Biitish Columbia is the moie
appiopiiate foium in which to heai a pioceeuing, F;=4 389=6@52 405 3623;F=41935= 25C5>194 48 405
J28355@69Q, incluuing:
(a) the compaiative convenience anu expense foi the paities to the pioceeuing anu foi theii witnesses, in
litigating in the couit oi in any alteinative foium,
(b) the law to be applieu to issues in the pioceeuing,
(c) the uesiiability of avoiuing F;C46JC6364D 8S C5Q1C J28355@69Q=,
(u) the uesiiability of avoiuing 389iC63469Q @536=689= 69 @6SS52594 38;24=,
(e) the enfoicement of an eventual juugment, anu
(f) the faii anu efficient woiking of the Canauian legal system as a whole.
)H?$- =! GG 6= 1 38FJC545 38@6i6314689 8S 405 38FF89 C1_ 45=4 S82 6(&/* "("X:("3%"1%"', it aumits of no
exceptions (5%:U W(*1":( OaaT /))). So once you have juiisuiction unuei the C}PTA, you have to go to s. 11
foi exeicising uiscietion anu TBAT'S IT. Theie is no othei souice foi the juiisuiction to exeicise uiscietion.
BC couits (anu any othei couit subject to the C}PTA) F;=4 consiuei these factois howevei, the list in s. 11(2)
is inclusive, it is not exhaustive - if theie aie othei ciicumstances that aie ielevant, counsel can iaise them
(K+(-;L' 3 W(*1":( OaaR ^))-).
The SCC has iejecteu the aigument (,-%5- ,*8'C. *5.2*11+ 4*<$) that a J2682 S8256Q9 1==524689 8S
Z;26=@634689 in an action is an oveiiiuing anu ueteiminative factoi in the s. 11 analysis (5%:U W(*1":().
(5"'.C<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
18
MAF %! .-$ 1*, ." 7$ *::1%$< %8 .-$ 1*, "! /0> .-*. %8 * !*5."# %' !*;"2# "! :#"5$$<%'& .-$ *5.%"' %' /0F Y! .-$ 1*, ."
7$ *::1%$< %8 .-$ 1*, "! 0-%'*> 4*+7$ .-*.C8 * !*5."# %' !*;"2# "! 0-%'* *8 .-$ !"#24F W# 4*+7$ %.C8 '".> 4*+7$ %.8
7*1*'5$< 7+ 8"4$.-%'& $18$F Y' K+(-;L' 3 W(*1":( OaaR ^))-g .-$ !*5. .-*. ,*8 "! &#$*. 8%&'%V%5*'5$ ,*8 .-$
$A%8.$'5$ "! .-$ $)&)++%+ $&(:%%;1"2 %' N*8-%'&."' 7$5*28$ O*P %. %8 5$#.*%'1+ 421.%:1%5%.+ "! 1$&*1 :#"5$$<%'&8
*'< O7P ,$ 4%&-. &$. 5"'V1%5.%'& <$5%8%"'8 R .-$8$ *#$ L 8%&'%V%5*'. !*5."#8F
$05 /)) 01= 25Z5345@ 405 12Q;F594 8S ci62=4N69N46F5g i62=4N69N26Q04e i.e. that fiist in time means uefeience
(5%:U W(*1":( OaaT /))). It is cleai that theie is no absolute uefeience to a foieign uecision that %. is the
most appiopiiate foium foi an action.
$53f )8F6938 J;4 S82_12@ O 12Q;F594= <1=5@ 89 P /)) Z;@QF594=:
(1) 0ne of the cases ielieu on was the 4*:<%* - 25=J534 405 S8256Q9 Z;26=@634689j= @6=325468912D
@536=689 (if theie is a ieasonable basis foi it). The seconu case ielieu on was F&( 9,1"2 !":O 3O G+0)
V(+6 !": OaaA /)) - iecognition anu enfoicement of a non-pecuniaiy juugment: SCC saiu no, we'ie
not going to iecognize Washington's uecision not to stay .-$%# action anu theiefoie, stay "2# action.
(2) The thiiu case ielieu on was the _! F(*$%- !";/'0&1% 3O GWTXK1"% @\ OaaP /)) - 405 1==524689
8S Z;26=@634689 <D 405 S8256Q9 38;24 6= 1 S13482 8S 8>52_05CF69Q =6Q96i631935 69 405 =! GG
191CD=6= of !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8: SCC says no, comity is not necessaiily seiveu by an absolute
automatic uefeiial to the fiist couit that asseits juiisuiction.
]<%&% ;(%' 0<)0 +%)3% +1012)"0' 1" >W I)"; (0<%& W7F54 $&(31":%'J ,<%" 0<%&% )&% $)&)++%+ ):01("'` O8*4$
:*#.%$8> 8*4$ %882$8> <%!!$#$'. 8.*.$8PF MM .-%'E8 %. 1$*;$8 ":$' .-$ *#&24$'. .-*. ,*8 *5.2*11+ :2.F c-$ *#&24$'.
.-*. ,*8 *5.2*11+ :2. ,*8 .-*. %! +"2 #$H$5. *1.$#'*.%;$ jK> +"2 &" ." 8$5.%"' KK *'< .-$ !*5. .-*. .-$ !"#$%&'
5"2#. O.-$ N*8-%'&."' 5"2#.P -*8 <$5%<$< "' #$*8"'*71$ &#"2'<8 O* #$*8"'*71$ !*58%4%1$ "! .-$ !"#24 '"'d
5"';$'%$'8 <"5.#%'$ -$#$P .-*. %. %8 .-$ 4"8. *::#":#%*.$ !"#24 !"# .-$ *5.%"' R 8-"21< 7$ &%;$' ;$#+ &#$*.
,$%&-. R @Wc ";$#,-$14%'&> @Wc <$.$#4%'*.%;$> 72. ;$#+ &#$*. ,$%&-.F c-*. ,*8 *' *#&24$'. ,-%5- ,*8
4"<$1$< "' .-$ b"4:$+ 5*8$ R .-*.C8 $A*5.1+ .-$ *::#"*5- .-*. .-$ I00 -*8 8*%< 1"5*1 5"2#.8 O0*'*<%*' 5"2#.8P
28$ !"# H2#%8<%5.%"' 8$1$5.%"' 51*28$8 O%! .-$ :*#.%$8 -*;$ *&#$$< ." 1%.%&*.$ 8"4$,-$#$ $18$> ,$11 ,$ &%;$ .-*. ;$#+
&#$*. ,$%&-. %' <$5%<%'& %! ,$C#$ !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8P R %.C8 A/'0 * !*5."#> 72. %.8 * '12"1a1:)"0 !*5."#F MM .-%'E8
+"2 5*' 8.%11 4*E$ .-%8 *#&24$'.F
M82F;C14689 8S 405 '6=325468912D ?26936JC5=: M:9<)""(" GTRE (] anu 9$1++1);) GTEA (] have
collectively set out the uoctiine of !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8. The 0KBL in 1986 auopteu the /38446=0 J26936JC5:
"The plea can nevei be sustaineu unless the couit is satisfieu that 40525 6= =8F5 84052 426<;91Cg 01>69Q
38FJ54594 Z;26=@634689g 69 _0630 405 31=5 F1D <5 4265@ F825 =;641<CD foi the inteiests of all the paities
anu foi the enus of justice" (9$1+1);) GTEA (]U., 1$*<%'& 5*8$ "' 8.*.$4$'. *'< $1*7"#*.%"' "! .-$ :#%'5%:1$8).
This foimula tells you that you consiuei =;641<6C64Dg taking into account: (a) 405 694525=4= 8S 1CC 405 J12465=
anu (b) 405 59@= 8S Z;=4635 (whatevei that means) - '". 4$#$ 5"';$'%$'5$> %. -*8 ." 7$ 51$*#1+ 4"#$ 82%.*71$.
This is the goveining foimula both foi uiscietion aftei seivice within Englanu anu seivice $A H2#%8F
"9 389=6@5269Q 405 59@= 8S Z;=4635, 1338;94 F;=4 <5 41f59 984 89CD 8S 69Z;=4635 48 405 @5S59@194 <;4 1C=8
8S 69Z;=4635 48 405 JC16946SS - so you'ie balancing (9$1+1);)). N$ 4%&-. 7$ .-$ 4"8. *::#":#%*.$ !"#24 !"# .-$
*5.%"'> 72. ,"21< %. 7$ 2'H28. ." .-$ :1*%'.%!! %! ,$ %882$< *' %'H2'5.%"'F -= 1 Q59521C 2;C5: the couit will not
giant an injunction if by uoing so it will uepiive the plaintiff of auvantages in the foieign couit of which it
woulu be unjust to uepiive him. But the couit is looking at *11 the factois in the case, looking at justice as
between the paities (how can we make this a faii uecision).
@".$( M'&1%8- 5"2#.8 *#$ U2%.$ ,%11%'& *7"2. &#*'.%'& *' *'.%d82%. %'H2'5.%"' O*14"8. *2."4*.%5*11+P ." :#".$5.
.-$%# ",' H2#%8<%5.%"'F MAF %! %. %8 * 5"'.#*5. *5.%"' *'< .-$ 5"'.#*5. -*8 * 51*28$ .-*. *'+ <%8:2.$8 ,%11 7$
*#7%.#*.$< %' ["'<"'F Y! "'$ "! .-$ :*#.%$8 82$8 %' Y.*1+> .-$ M'&1%8- 5"2#. ,%11 &#*'. *' *'.%d82%. %'H2'5.%"' ."
:#".$5. M'&1%8- H2#%8<%5.%"' ." *#7%.#*.$ *8 .-$ :*#.%$8 -*;$ *&#$$< ."F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
19
The SCC has also incoipoiateu the Scottish piinciple B0T we can't assume that we just apply 9$1+1);). Theie
aie P S13482= 69 405 6(&/* :("3%"1%"' J26936JC5 8S @6=3254689 (4*:<%* GTTP /))):
kGl We uon't consiuei Z;@6361C 1@>1941Q5= sepaiately in Canaua (iefeiiing to M:9<)""("), we just thiow it
into the pot anu consiuei it in the pie-stage piocess that ?5I-*''"' uses.
kOl ^;2@59 8S J288S: S82 =52>635 _64069 405 Z;26=@634689 6= 89 405 @5S59@194 (this hasn't changeu).
^;2@59 8S J288S S82 =52>635 %H A/&1' is moie uifficult. @".$( %' M'&1*'<> %! .-$ <$!$'<*'. %8 8$#;$< $A H2#%8> .-$
72#<$' "! :#""! %8 "' .-$ :1*%'.%!! %' .-$ $Ad:*#.$ *::1%5*.%"' OM'&1*'< 5"2#.8 8.%11 #$U2%#$ 1$*;$ ." 8$#;$ $AdH2#%8PF
"9 ^)g the BCCA hau been inteipieting the Rules of Couit as imposing the <;2@59 8S J288S 89 405 JC16946SS 69
=52>635 %HXA/&1' 31=5= (same as Englanu; BCCA maue this veiy cleai.)!
4*:<%* (SCC, Sopinka }) coulun't unueistanu why the buiuen evei woulu have been put on the plaintiff, so it
shoulu always be on the uefenuant (*1.-"2&- .-$ *11"5*.%"' "! .-$ 72#<$' "! :#""! "' * <$!$'<*'. ,-" %8 7$%'&
5*11$< %' ." <$!$'< %8 %'5"'8%8.$'. ,%.- .-$ 5"'5$:. "! 5"4%.+ .-*. I00 $1$;*.$8 8" 425-). "9 ^)g 5>59 1S452
4*:<%*g we continueu to follow the English iule anu put the <;2@59 8S J288S 89 405 JC16946SS 6S 64 _1= 1
=52>635 5BNZ;26= case 0NTIL the W7F54 (2uu6). Theie has not been a single BC case (at least at BCCA level)
that has <%85288$< the buiuen of pioof. ^;4 69 405 31=5= 98_g 5>59 69 405 ^))-g 405 38;24 =55F= 48 <5
F69@C5==CD JC1369Q 405 <;2@59 8S J288S 89 405 @5S59@194 4028;Q08;4! Theie is no legal ieason why the
C}PTA shoulu have hau that effect but appaiently it has.
311"5*.%"' "! 72#<$' "! :#""! 5*' 4*E$ * -2&$ <%!!$#$'5$ 7$5*28$ * 1". "! .-$8$ 5*8$8 %' ,-%5- <%85#$.%"' %8
%';"E$< *#$ :#$..+ $;$'1+ 7*1*'5$< %' .$#48 "! *::#":#%*.$'$88 "! .-$ .," :"88%71$ !"#* !"# .-$ *5.%"'F
kPl The h;194;F 8S J288S: it must be establisheu that theie is anothei foium which is :+%)&+- (quantum)
moie appiopiiate foi this action (4*:<%*, 5"'8%8.$'. ,%.- 9$1+1);), !"11",$< 7+ 5-:( OaaE &#)-)
^;2@59 19@ X;194;F 8S ?288S 69 ,9QC19@: the main uiffeience between the application of the foimula aftei
seivice in Englanu vs seivice $A H2#%8 is in the allocation of the buiuen of pioof. If the uefenuant has been
=52>5@ 69 ,9QC19@, then the <;2@59 8S J288S 6= 89 405 @5S59@194 to peisuaue the English couit that theie is
anothei foium which is 51$*#1+ (quantum) moie appiopiiate foi this action. If the uefenuant has been =52>5@
%H A/&1'g 405 <;2@59 8S J288S 6= 89 405 JC16946SS in the $A :*#.$ application (English couits still iequiie leave
to seive $A H2#%8) to peisuaue the English couit that it is the most appiopiiate foium foi the action (9$1+1);)).
Y' M'&1*'<> .-$ 72#<$' "! :#""! %8 $8.*71%8-$<F c-$#$ %8 '" U2$8.%"' *7"2. %.F Y. %8 28$< ";$# *'< ";$# *&*%'F
%5C5>194 S13482= 48 <5 389=6@525@ 69 5B5236=69Q @6=3254689 <D 989N)H?$- Z;26=@634689=:
Factois commonly consiueieu by couits in exeicising theii uiscietion anu ueciuing which of the two
contenueu-foi juiisuictions is the most appiopiiate foium foi the action: (1) the location wheie the contiact
in uispute was signeu (2) the applicable law of the contiact (S) the location of witnesses, especially key
witnesses (4) the location wheie the bulk of the eviuence will come fiom (S) the juiisuiction in which the
factual matteis aiose (6) the iesiuence oi place of business of the paities anu (6) he loss of a legitimate
juiiuical auvantage (b(/"2 3 5-:( OaaE &#)-g 8.#*%&-. !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8 "' &#"2'<8 .-*. Y'<%*'* ,"21<
7$ .-$ 51$*#1+ 4"#$ *::#":#%*.$ !"#24 !"# .-$ *5.%"'). These aie not exhaustiveueteiminative, they aie
uiscietionaiy.
In the pieliminaiyinteilocutoiy stage in the tiial (you'ie not ueciuing the facts, it's not a tiial on the meiits),
the couit shoulu auopt a "J2;@59461Cg 984 19 1QQ25==6>5 1JJ28130g 48 S134 i69@69Q". It shoulu be baseu on
the plaintiff's claim %! it has a ieasonable basis in the iecoiu (if you'ie going to accept the plaintiff's veision of
the facts, assuming theie is a ieasonable basis the iecoiu). You aie not going to ueciue baseu on the plaintiff's
veision anu the uefenuant's veision *. .-%8 8.*&$ R that comes latei in the meiits (b(/"2 3 5-:( OaaE &#)-).
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
2u
-#$"N/("$ "#H(#)$"&#/
M82F;C14689 8S 405 '6=325468912D ?26936JC5=: You uon't just apply the same piinciples as !"#24 5"';$'%$'8
(4%&('$)01)+% GTER (]?), ";$#.2#'%'& W)'0)"<( GTEa (]U.g ,-%5- 8*%< ,$ 8-"21< 7$ 1""E%'& *. ,-*. .-$
4"8. *::#":#%*.$ !"#24 %8). The Castanho appioach is much too libeial.
4%&('$)01)+% sets out the piinciples, but in applying those piinciples, we have to have uue iegaiu foi
Canauian piinciples. Accoiuing to the SCC, theie aie 4_8 82@6912DKQ59521C 2;C5= m cJ25N
389@64689=e (4*:<%* GTTP /))):
kGl Theie shoulu be no application foi an anti-suit injunction in a Canauian couit unless 405 S8256Q9 134689
01= 1C251@D <559 38FF5935@ (8" +"2C;$ &". ." -*;$ #$*1%G$< .-$ #%8E '". H28. 7$ *'.%5%:*.%'& %.).
kOl Theie shoulu still be no application (assuming the foieign action has been commenceu) foi an anti-suit
injunction in Canaua until you have 1=f5@ 405 S8256Q9 38;24 48 5B5236=5 10' @6=3254689 19@ =41D 64= 8_9
134689. This won't help you veiy much if the action has been commenceu in a civil law system ('"
<%85#$.%"'*#+ $1$4$'.), but can be useful if it is a common law action.
The couit is not bounu by these "oiuinaiy" iules; they can be uisiegaiueu if ciicumstances waiiant (./;(" 3
V%(' K)"2/)2% W(&$(&)01(" GTTR &#')> W@=0 <%< '". .#$*. :#$d5"'<%.%"'8 *8 *78"12.$> H28. "#<%'*#+ #21$8).
kPl "S 405 S8256Q9 38;24 @85= 984 1Q255 48 =41D 64= 8_9 134689, then the Canauian couit will 5>1C;145 405
S8256Q9 @536=689 984 48 =41D! B0T we will uo this 0NLY IF we aie 405 most appiopiiate foium foi the action
(natuial foium, the one that is !"#24 5"';$'%$'8 in light of the ciicumstances in the case) oi 19 appiopiiate
foium foi the action (i.e. we have teiiitoiial competence) (4*:<%*, .-$ I00 <"$8 '". 4*E$ %. 51$*# ,-%5- %. %8).
This shoulu piobably be inteipieteu consistently with 41&B/' !";/'0&1% 3 F)0%+ anu 4%&('$)01)+%, i.e. we
shoulu only giant an anti-suit injunction if we aie 405 most appiopiiate foium foi the action (the natuial
foium) but we shoulun't uo it if we aie not, at the minimum, 19 appiopiiate foium foi the action.
As a geneial iule, the English must concluue that it pioviues "the natuial foium" foi the action, i.e. it is "cleaily
the most appiopiiate foium foi the action" (4%&('$)01)+% GTER (]?)) - ,$ 7".- -*;$ H2#%8<%5.%"'> 72.
,$%&-%'& .-$ .,"> ,$ *#$ .-$ 4"8. *::#":#%*.$ !"#24 !"# .-$ *5.%"'. So we fiist have to ueciue whethei ,% aie
405 most appiopiiate foium foi the action (not H28. that we have juiisuiction).
- h;1C6i6314689 89 405 J8_52 8S 405 38;24 48 6==;5 19 1946N=;64 69Z;934689: a couit will not take the extia-
oiuinaiy step of gianting an anti-suit injunction against a paity ovei whom it has juiisuiction (i.e. its
iesiuents) unless that couit is the 914;21C S82;F S82 405 ):01(", even if it is the 914;21C S82;F S82 405
1"A/":01(" )$$+1:)01(" (41&B/' !";/'0&1% 3 F)0%+ GTTE (]U., ,$ 5*'C. 8%4:1+ :"1%5$ "2# #$8%<$'5$ !"# .-$
7$'$V%. "! ".-$# H2#%8<%5.%"'8). S you can't just go to the couit wheie the paities you want the injunction against
aie locateu - it's gotta be a couit that coinciues with the piopei foium foi the main action.
kLl $8 5>1C;145 405 S8256Q9 @536=689 984 48 =41D, we must ueciue, baseu on oui own piinciples, whethei the
foieign couit hau a 251=891<C5 <1=6= foi its uecision (4*:<%*). It's not quite "woulu we have come to the
same conclusion" anu it is intenueu to take account of legal systems that uon't exeicise uiscietion (%F$F 5%;%1 1*,
8+8.$48> ,-%5- <"'C. -*;$ * <"5.#%'$ "! !"#24 '"'d5";$'%$'8). What we uo is think about what we woulu have
uone using the uoctiine of !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8 in those ciicumstances, anu ask "uiu they have a ieasonable
basis foi that conclusion." 0nly if they aie blatantly wiong shoulu we issue an anti-suit injunction.
kYl Lastly, we will only giant an anti-suit injunction if continuation of that foieign action is ;9Z;=4 82 _6CC
J28@;35 19 69Z;=4635 (4*:<%*> '".$( .-%8 %8 "(0 5"'8%8.$'. ,%.- 4%&('$)01)+%, ,-$#$ .-$ 5"2#. 2::$< .-$
8.*'<*#<( ,-$#$ * #$4$<+ !"# * :*#.%521*# ,#"'& %8 *;*%1*71$ %' 7".- *' M'&1%8- 5"2#. *'< * !"#$%&' 5"2#. O%F$F
+"2 -*;$ .," :"88%71$ :1*5$8 ." 1%.%&*.$> .-$+ 7".- -*;$ H2#%8<%5.%"'P &$'$#*11+ 8:$*E%'&> .-$ M'&1%8- 5"2#. ,%11
"'1+ #$8.#*%' * :1*%'.%!! !#"4 :#"5$$<%'& %' * !"#$%&' 5"2#. %! 825- :2#82%. ,"21< 7$ 3%H)01(/' (& ($$&%''13%).
The SCC (Sopinka } in 4*:<%*) wants flexibility, we uon't talk about oppiession anu vexation in Canaua. You
only have to go to the level of peisuauing the couit that continuing the action will piouuce an injustice.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
21
H(%"/'")$"&# /,.,)$"#+ ).-(/,/
}uiisuiction selecting clauses anu aibitiation clauses aie commonly founu in contiacts. @".$ #$ <#*!.%'&( you
want to make suie they aie bioau enough to covei any uisputes that might aiise out of a contiact anu you also
want to make suie that they give 5B3C;=6>5 juiisuiction to a paiticulai couit, if that is what you want.
The cuiient position (anu it is auheieu to in the F(*$%- !";/'0&1% 3O GWTXK1"% OaaP /))) is that juiisuiction
selecting clauses aie given >52D Q2514 _56Q04 when it comes time foi the couit to exeicise @6=3254689 (to
ueciue whethei oi not it is the most appiopiiate foium foi the action). The common law has nevei consiueieu
juiisuiction selecting clauses in contiacts to be tieateu as 1<=8C;45. We uo not say, if theie is a juiisuiction
selecting clause in the contiact, we have no juiisuiction simpliciteiteiiitoiial competence (.-*. ,"21< 4";$ %.
!#"4 .-$ <%85#$.%"' :"#.%"' "! .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"' <$5%8%"' ." .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"'*1 #21$ :*#.).
It is peimissible foi juiisuiction selecting clauses to be F1@5 1<=8C;45 <D =414;45 - so you always have to be
on youi guaiu. Theie is also some statutoiy law (consumei piotection law) in some piovinces in which
juiisuiction selecting clauses anu aibitiation clauses in consumei contiacts will be 425145@ 1= >86@ - these
aie imposeu, not baigaineu foi, we have to have to piotect the consumei, etc.
Whenevei theie is a juiisuiction selecting clause, theie aie always going to be 4_8 J8459461C 6==;5=:
kGl _054052 405 3C1;=5 6= >1C6@ (theie may be choice of law iules that ueteimine whethei the choice of law
clause is valiu) kOl 405 5SS534 8S 1 >1C6@ 308635 8S C1_ 3C1;=5
The test foi ueteimining whethei theie is a valiu juiisuiction selecting clause is the oiiginal common law test
set out in G+%60<%&1) (1$*<%'& M'&1%8- 5*8$), it is <1=631CCD 6(&/* "("X:("3%"1%"' - the same factois (F(*$%-
!";/'0&1%'). It is a F;C46NS1348261C 191CD=6=: you look at all the ciicumstances, all the factois that you consiuei
foi foium non-conveniens anu you auu in the juiisuiction selecting clause - anu it has veiy heavy weight.
If the plaintiff has biought an action in feueial couit in bieach of a juiisuiction selecting clause, then the
<;2@59 8S J288S is on that paity to show why he shoulu not be helu to the contiact that was negotiateu.
$,/$: The <;2@59 6= 89 405 J124D _08 3088=5= 48 C646Q145 69 1 Z;26=@634689 84052 4019 405 895 =5C5345@
by the juiisuiction selecting clause to peisuaue the couit that theie is a =4289Q 31;=5 as to why the paity
shoulu be peimitteu to uo so anu not be helu to his baigain (this is a heavy buiuen) - $AF T'$U2*1 7*#&*%'%'&
:"8%.%"'8 O%F$F #$*11+ -*< '" 5-"%5$P. In F(*$%- !";/'0&1%', couit founu no stiong ieason why the litigation
shoulu not happen in Belgium - both paities sophisticateu; equal connections with Belgium as with Canaua.
@".$( the SCC in 2u12 appeais to have moveu the juiisuiction selecting clause fiom the uiscietionaiy element
of the juiisuictional uecision into an 1<=8C;45 Z;26=@6346891C @536=689: "you uon't have any juiisuiction
because theie is an agieement to litigate somewheie else - theie is no subject mattei juiisuiction." Bowevei,
the couit says the Pompey case is still applicable (M(*%"0(/' OaGO /)), 5"2#. 8$$48 ." .#$*. H2#%8<%5.%"'
8$1$5.%'& 51*28$ *8 &"%'& ." A/&1';1:01(" '". <%85#$.%"'). So now the BCCA is stiuggling with the ieconciliation
of F(*$%-, 5%:U W(*1":( anu M(*%"0(/'O
@".$( the BCCA in 2u11 saiu the F(*$%- c=4289Q 31;=5e 45=4 will only apply if the juiisuiction selecting
clause was voiu (\1&(6(&:% 3 CR? W)$10)+ OaGG ^))-).
@".$( the BCCA in 2u12 saiu: 5%:U W(*1":( says 'O YY is exhaustive. F(*$%- says juiisuiction selecting clause
is a sepaiate inquiiy, so couit engageu in common law inquiiy outsiue C}PTA (F&%-*)" 3 4-/' OaGO ^))-).
MM thinks in BC, the couits aie going to continue to use the F(*$%- c=4289Q 31;=5e 45=4. They aie going to
give =6Q96i63194 <;4 984 @5452F69146>5 _56Q04 to the juiisuiction selecting clause (72. .-$+ 8-"21<'C. <" %.).
MM thinks it's not that uifficult to simply factoi F(*$%- into the W7F54 'O YY analysis. s. 11 is not exhaustive -
it may be an exhaustive statement of the common law piinciple (in s. 11(1)) but s. 11(2), which sets out the
factois, uoes not puipoit to be exhaustive anu even if it is an exhaustive list, we can fit it in to one of those
geneial factois listeu.
"FJ824194: c=4289Q 31;=5e 45=4 _6CC 89CD <5 25C5>194 6S 64 6= 19 5B3C;=6>5 Z;26=@634689N=5C53469Q 3C1;=5!
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
22
).-// -)$"&#/
Theie aie 2 mouels of class actions: opt-in oi opt-out. The majoiity of Canauian piovinces have auopteu opt-
out - eveiybouy is in unless you opt out in time.
Theie is no special iule foi class actions. The foium must have A/&1';1:01(" '1*$+1:10%&K4522648261C
38FJ545935 anu if theie is objection to that juiisuiction, it must finu that it is the F8=4 1JJ28J26145 S82;F
S82 405 J28355@69Q. So you have the same basic piinciples opeiating but sometimes they iequiie (because of
the way these class actions aie set up). We'ie a bit loosei with iespect to class actions.
$522648261C 38FJ545935: the appioach taken by BC couits in class actions is to go back to oiuei anu faiiness.
We aie not conceineu with a mechanical application of iules, we have to be flexible, we have to have faiiness
(.)&&1"20(" 3 ?(, W(&"1"2 Oaaa ^))-). Bowevei, the NNCA suggests theie is nothing wionginaumissible
with using the tiauitional iules to give us H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# (])&; 3 W)");) OaaR I^)-).
^(&/* "("X:("3%"1%"': NNCA simply says we'ie going to apply the usual factois using the 4*:<%* case,
setting out the piinciples goveining !"#24 '"'d5"';$'$%'8, anu ueciue whethei NN is the most appiopiiate
foium foi the action (])&; 3 W)");)).
$05 J8694: if the class action hasn't been ceitifieu yet, you'ie not fixeu with the uecision of the couit iegaiuing
juiisuiction - it is a pieliminaiy uecision. 0nce the case is ceitifieu anu moves on, %! ciicumstanceseviuence
witnesses aiise anu we leain othei factois, then the uefenuant can make an application with the case
management juuge latei (])&; 3 W)");), ,$ -*;$ H2#%8<%5.%"'> ,$ *#$ .-$ 4"8. *::#":#%*.$ !"#24 !"# .-$
*5.%"' *'< +"2C#$ '". 7"2'< 7+ .-%8> +"2 5*' 4*E$ *' *::1%5*.%"' 1*.$#).
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
2S
%,)&+#"$"&# -#' ,#M&%),I,#$: !@ FGC9S@4M H('+I,#$/
Biffeient juiisuictions may have uiffeient iules foi iecognition anu enfoicement so the plaintiff may have to
satisfy uiffeient iules uepenuing on the juiisuiction in which they want to have theii juugment iecognizeu anu
enfoiceu. Eveiy state in the woilu piefeis to select ,-%5- foieign juugments it is going to iecognize anu
enfoice.
0ntil such time that the BC couit iecognizes a foieign juugment, it iemains a foieign juugment. 0nce it has
been iecognizeu in BC, howevei, it is 5SS5346>5CD 1 ^) Z;@QF594 19@ 59S82351<C5 1= 1 ^) Z;@QF594. So you
can use all the BC methous foi enfoicing juugments once the BC couit iecognizes the foieign. }uugment.
U8_ @8 D8; 389>524 69 ^)d (1) using 38FF89 C1_ 2;C5= oi (2) using =414;482D 2;C5=. A plaintiffjuugment
cieuitoi's eligibility to use a statutoiy methou of enfoicement uepenus on the place of oiigin of the juugment
to be enfoiceu: (a) G"6(&:%*%"0 (6 W)");1)" 7/;2*%"0' )"; ?%:&%%' 4:0 (EC}BA) can be useu 89CD S82
)191@619 Z;@QF594= (i.e. fiom othei piovinces) (b) W(/&0 S&;%& G"6(&:%*%"0 4:0 F)&0 D (useu to be in the
k$5%:#"5*1 M'!"#5$4$'. *'< a2<&4$'.8 35.) can be useu foi juugments oiiginating fiom the juiisuictions that
aie listeu.
If you have a client with a foieign juugment which that client wishes to have iecognizeu anu enfoiceu in BC
the fiist thing you shoulu ask is: _014 6= 405 826Q691469Q Z;26=@634689. If it is a )191@619 Z;@QF594, go
uiiectly to the GW7?4, uo not pass go, uo not hesitate. If it is a Canauian juugment (except Quebec) oi a 989N
)191@619 J53;9612D Z;@QF594 S28F 1 Z;26=@634689 C6=45@ 69 405 25Q;C14689= unuei the C0EA, you may be
able to use the WSG4 F)&0 D. Foi eveiything else, you have to use the common law.
As a plaintiffjuugement cieuitoi with an extia-piovincialfoieign juugment, you can use 19D 82 1CC F5408@=
(common law, statutoiy, whatevei woiks), in the alteinative, togethei, back to back, it uoesn't mattei - it is not
consiueieu to be an abuse of piocess of couit. Anu you can 1C_1D= fall back on the common law.
Be veiy conscious of the C6F6414689 J5268@= S82 59S8235F594 8S S8256Q9 Z;@QF594= - they may be uiffeient
fiom place to place. In Canaua, (at common law) _5 42514 S8256Q9 Z;@QF594= 1= @5<4 134689=, it is a
juuicially-cieateu uebt. "9 ^)g 405 C6F6414689 J5268@ S82 134689= 69 @5<4 6= A D512= B0T theie aie piovisions
in the cuiient [%4%.*.%"' 35. anu the [%4%.*.%"' 35. that is will ieplace the cuiient one in 2u1S.
"9 ^)g 405 C6F6414689 J5268@ S82 <269Q69Q 19 134689 89 1 S8256Q9 Z;@QF594 6=:
(a) 1u yeais commencing fiom the enfoicement uate of the foieign juugment 0R
(b) the limitation peiiou of the oiiginating juiisuiction %! %.C8 8-"#.$#.
?,)(#"-%` H('+I,#$/
-4 38FF89 C1_g to conveit a foieign juugment in BC, the plaintiff has to peisuaue the BC couit that:
(1) The foieign juugment is i691C 19@ 3893C;=6>5 anu
(2) The foieign juiisuiction hau Z;26=@634689 c69 405 694529146891C =59=5e (i.e. we think they hau H2#%8<%5.%"'
8%4:%5%.$#teiiitoiial competence).
'5S5935= 4014 319 <5 216=5@ to pievent iecognition anu enfoicement:
(1) ,B3C;=68912D 2;C5= (penal law, ievenue law, public law, contiaiy to foium public policy)
(2) Theie was a <25130 8S 914;21C Z;=4635 in the oiiginating juiisuiction
(S) A S21;@ on the couit ('".$ %. %8 '". .-$ !"#$%&' 5"2#. :$#:$.2*.%'& * !#*2<> %. %8 .-$ :1*%'.%!!)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
24
M"#-."$` -#' )&#).(/"\,#,//
@".$( .-%8 %8 '". * #$U2%#$4$'.X5"'<%.%"' .-*. %8 "!.$' &"%'& ." 7$ *' %882$F
In oiuei to establish that a juugment is final anu conclusive, it must show that the couit by which it was
pionounceu hau conclusively, finally anu foievei establisheu the mattei =8 1= 48 F1f5 405 F14452 &%'
A/;1:)0) <54_559 405 J12465=. If it is not conclusive in the same couit which pionounceu it, so that the
paities may ietuin to that same couit anu have the mattei aujuuicateu again, then that juugment will not be
consiueieu to be final anu conclusive (@(/31(" 3 ^&%%*)" GEET U.). Basically, if you can go back to the same
couit anu get that couit to mouify the juugment, it is not final anu conclusive.
@".$( F1694591935K=;JJ824 82@52= aie '$;$# final oi conclusive (in CanauaNoith Ameiica) because the
same couit that issueu the maintenancesuppoit oiuei can mouifyaujust it. Bowevei, theie is C5Q6=C14689
that enables paities to get foieign maintenance oiueis iecognizeu anu enfoiceu in anothei juiisuiction.
A @5S1;C4 Z;@QF594 at common law %8 final anu conclusive because you can't go back to the same couit anu
get it mouifieu; all you can uo is get it set asiue
The common law consiueis a Z;@QF594 89 1JJ51C to be final anu conclusive foi puiposes of iecognition anu
enfoicement. Bowevei, if the uefenuant is appealing the juugment, then theie is a piovision (unuei the Rules
of Couit) foi the uefenuant to apply foi a =41D 8S 405 ^) 2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 J28355@69Q=.
/2. .-$ :"%'. %8( +"2 5*' 5"44$'5$ +"2# *5.%"' %' /0 !"# #$5"&'%.%"' *'< $'!"#5$4$'. "! .-$ !"#$%&' H2<&4$'.
*'< $;$' %! .-$ /0 5"2#. %882$8 * 8.*+ "! +"2# *5.%"'> ,-%5- %. 2'<"27.$<1+ ,%11> +"2 '", -*;$ *' *5.%"' %'
$A%8.$'5$ %' /0> *'< +"2 4%&-. 7$ *71$ ." &$. :#$dH2<&4$'. &*#'%8-4$'.> ?*#$;* %'H2'5.%"'> $.5F
H(%"/'")$"&# "# $U, "#$,%#-$"&#-. /,#/,
$05 38FF89 C1_ <1=5= S82 Z;26=@634689 69 405 694529146891C =59=5 (i.e. the foium's view on what they will
iecognize) pioviueu alteinative bases foi the foieign couit's juiisuiction:
(a) the uefenuant was J25=594 in the foieign juiisuiction when the action was commenceu theie 0R
(b) the uefenuant somehow =;<F6445@ to the juiisuiction of the foieign couit 0R
(c) a 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 (*<<$< 7+ M(&2/)&; %' K^^gZ 8" %! .-$#$ ,*8 * #$*1 *'< 8278.*'.%*1
5"''$5.%"' 7$.,$$' .-$ *5.%"' *'< .-$ !"#$%&' H2#%8<%5.%"'> /0 ,%11 #$5"&'%G$ *'< $'!"#5$ .-*. !"#$%&'
H2<&4$'.). @".$( @" ".-$# 5"44"' 1*, H2#%8<%5.%"' %' .-$ ,"#1< -*8 *<":.$< .-$ ?"#&2*#< #21$F c-$ Y#%8- I0
#$5$'.1+ $A:#$881+ #$H$5.$< %. 7$5*28$ %.C8 ."" 2'5$#.*%'X;*&2$ *'< .-$ TJI0 #$H$5.$< %. %' @$, 0*: ; 3M
l#*'. 2u12F /2.> f +$*#8 1*.$# .-$ I00 5"'8.%.2.%"'*1%G$< .-$ #$*1 *'< 8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"' #21$ %' S2'.F
?25=5935
In common law, the couits will iecognize F525g 45FJ8212D J25=5935 1= =;Si636594 foi establishing
juiisuiction in the inteinational sense foi puiposes of iecognition anu enfoicement (M)<)&)"1). The common
law uoes not iequiie a high level of connection foi juiisuiction in the inteinational sense (.-$ U2*1%V%5*.%"'
7$%'& %! +"2 ,$#$ .#%5E$< %'." .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"'> .-*. :#"7*71+ ,"21<'C. 5"2'.).
Foi coipoiations, theie aie statutoiy iules foi "coipoiate piesence".
/;<F6==689
The basic iequiiement foi submission oi attoinment is that it must be voluntaiy. If you stay anu @5S59@ 89
405 F5264=, you have cleaily submitteu to the juiisuiction of the foieign couit.
But you uon't neeu to use expiess woius to submit; it can happen without you 69459@69Q to submit to the
juiisuiction of the foieign couit. The question is 8<Z5346>5CD _014 @6@ 405 @5S59@194= 134;1CCD @8 in the
foieign pioceeuing. (^1&'0 @)01(")+ >)"U (6 .(/'0(" GTTa ^))-, <%<'C. 4*..$# .-*. <$!$'<*'.8 -*< '".
%'8.#25.$< .-$%# *.."#'$+8 ." 8274%. ." .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"' "! .-$ cm 5"2#.). @".$( if counsel is acting without youi
authoiity, that won't be consiueieu submission, but if counsel has authoiity anu uoes something in the foieign
pioceeuing which constitutes submission, you will have submitteu objectively.
(5"'.C<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
2S
kGl You can aigue that the S8256Q9 38;24 01= 98 Z;26=@634689 (i.e. H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#teiiitoiial
competence) - 406= 6= 984 =;<F6==689.
kOl But if you ask the S8256Q9 38;24 48 5B5236=5 64= @6=3254689 (!"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8), then you have
J28<1<CD =;<F6445@ (/"+%'' M1;XS<1( 5-*'&$< .-$ 5"44"' 1*,Z M1;XS<1( 3 5&1XN GTTY ^))- 8*%<( %! +"2
<" ";$# .-$#$ ,-*. +"2 *#$ *11",$< ." <" -$#$> ,$ ,%11 '". 5"'8%<$# +"2 ." -*;$ 8274%..$< 7$5*28$ "2# #21$8 8*+
+"2 -*;$'C. 8274%..$< %! +"2 *8E .-$ 5"2#. ." $A$#5%8$ %.8 <%85#$.%"'F /2. .-$ 8.*.28 "! .-%8 <$5%8%"' %8 * 1%..1$
2'5$#.*%'> 8" %. %8 '". '$5$88*#%1+ &"8:$1 1*, %' /0Z 8$$ '".$ 7$1",).
This is because in common law Canaua, we have to ueciue Z;26=@634689 (juiisuiction simpliciteiteiiitoiial
competence) i62=4 befoie we ueciue whethei we'ie the most appiopiiate foium foi the action (uiscietion)
because the logic is: you can't exeicise uiscietion 2'1$88 you have juiisuiction.
@(0% &% M1;XS<1(E The BC Rules of Couit at that time alloweu a uefenuant to ask a BC couit to exeicise its
uiscietion anu stay its pioceeuing without constituting acceptance of the juiisuiction of the couit (C/+% YQ
)"; Yc)F Woou } saiu this changes the common law, at least foi BC. Be useu C/+% YcIZJ to say that uefenuants
in foieign actions have the same fieeuom theie as uefenuants have in BC, so the @5S59@194= 69 S8256Q9
134689= 319 k1l 8<Z534 48 Z;26=@634689 19@ k<l 69>8f5 405 @6=3254689 8S 405 S8256Q9 38;24g 19@ ^) _6CC 984
389=6@52 405F 48 01>5 =;<F6445@.
$05 J28<C5F 6=, we uon't have C/+% YcIZJ anymoie anu it is 984 3C512 _054052 I6@N&068 is a common law
uecision oi a mistaken uecision on the pait of the BC couit that C/+% YcIZJ hau changeu oui iecognition anu
enfoicement iules. If Niu-0hio changeu the common law iules, that's okay, but if it is tieu to the civil Rules of
Couit, then Niu-0hio is no longei goou law.
b#*5.%5*1 .%:( Y! +"2 <%< <$5%<$ ." *#&2$ <%85#$.%"' *8 ,$11 *8 H2#%8<%5.%"' *'< +"2 1"8.> 8.*+ *'< <$!$'< "' .-$
4$#%.8 7$5*28$ ".-$#,%8$ .-$ <$!$'<*'. ,%11 ,*1E *11 ";$# +"2 *'< &$. ,-*.$;$# -$ ,*'.8F /2. <"'C. ,*1E *,*+
*'+4"#$ "' .-$ *8824:.%"' .-*. +"2C#$ -"4$d!#$$ 7$5*28$ +"2 -*;$'C. 8274%..$<F
kPl B0T the minute you 1=f 405 38;24 48 @8 =8F54069Q S82 D8;, i.e. make any othei oiueis which iequiie the
couit to -*;$ juiisuiction in oiuei to make that oiuei - D8; 01>5 =;<F6445@ (M1;XS<1(8 /003 <%8.%'&2%8-$8
7$.,$$' *8E%'& .-$ 5"2#. ." %H%&:1'% 10' ;1':&%01(" *'< *)U1"2 0%:<"1:)+ )&2/*%"0' O?%<dW-%" <%< 7".-P)!
You can't aigue that youi submission was involuntaiy because youi J28J524D 69 405 S8256Q9 Z;26=@634689
_1= =5675@ 69 1@>1935 8S 405 4261C 89 405 F5264=. Bowevei, you may, at common law, in such a situation,
8<Z534 48 405 3)+1;10- 8S 405 =567;25 without having submitteu oi you can object to the juiisuiction of the
foieign couit (W+1"0(" 3 ^(&; GTEO &#)-, ,$ 5"'8%<$# .-%8 * 5"44"' 1*, <$5%8%"' *::1%5*71$ %' *11 5"44"'
1*, :#";%'5$8). If the uefenuant hau aigueu: "you aie not entitleu to seize my piopeity" oi "you have no
juiisuiction," he woulu not have submitteu.
%51C 19@ /;<=419461C )899534689
In Canaua, even if you sit on youi hanus anu uon't uo *'+.-%'&, the couit may still finu that theie was
juiisuiction in the inteinational sense if theie was a 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 (M(&2/)&; GTTa /))).
Within Canaua, theie is a constitutional piinciple that a Canauian couit F;=4 iecognize anothei Canauian
couit's juugment if the juiisuiction was J28J52CD 19@ 1JJ28J26145CD 1==;F5@!
M(&2/)&; 1C=8 1JJC65= 48 989N)191@619 Z;@QF594= (M('%' 3 9<(&%' >()0 >/1+;%&' ^))-, ,%.- .-$ 71$88%'&
"! .-$ I00 %' >%)+' 3 9)+;)"<) OaaP /))). Bowevei, theie is 98 389=464;46891C 8<C6Q14689 to iecognize non-
Canauian juugments they way theie is with iespect to Canauian juugments (>%)+' 3 9)+;)"<)).
Also, the SCC seems to iequiie a Q251452 3899534689 foi iecognition anu enfoicement of non-Canauian
juugments: "The 'ieal anu substantial connection' test iequiies that a =6Q96i63194 connection exist between
the cause of action anu the foieign couit." "A iC55469Q 82 25C146>5CD ;96FJ824194 3899534689 will not be
enough to give a foieign couit juiisuiction. The connection to the foieign juiisuiction must be a =;<=419461C
one" (4*H"#%.+ %' >%)+' 3 9)+;)"<)). But we aie still talking about ieal anu substantial connection - we aie
not in any of the cases talking about a "significant" connection. (5"'.C<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
26
It 4*+ 7$ that 405 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 45=4 6= 389=6@525@ 48 <5 405 89CD 45=4 now, anu you can use
"piesence" oi "submission" to 7"18.$# the ieal anu substantial connection. "A ieal anu substantial connection is
the 8>5226@69Q S13482 in the ueteimination of juiisuiction. The piesence of moie of the tiauitional inuicia of
juiisuiction (attoinment, agieement to submit, iesiuence anu piesence in the foieign juiisuiction) will seive
to <8C=452 the ieal anu substantial connection to the action oi paities" (4*H"#%.+ %' >%)+' 3 9)+;)"<)).
/2. .-$#$ -*8'C. 7$$' *' I00 5*8$ 5"'V%#4%'& .-*. >%)+' %8 5"##$5. %' %.8 4"<%V%5*.%"' "! .-$ "#<%'*#+ #21$8> %'
:*#.%521*# .-$ #21$8 !"# '"'d0*'*<%*' H2<&4$'.8 R 8" +"2 5*' 8.%11 *#&2$ %.F Y' :#*5.%5$> +"2 5*' *8824$ .-*. .-$ f
.#*<%.%"'*1 !*5."#8 *#$ %'<$:$'<$'. 7*8$8 !"# H2#%8<%5.%"'F
Example wheie a ieal anu substantial connection was not establisheu: BCCA ueclineu to iecognize anu
enfoice a Texas action wheie the allegeu uefamatoiy mateiial of the uefenuant consisteu of infoimation
posteu on a thiiu paity's bulletin boaiu. The couit helu that a uistinction has to be uiawn between
"puiposeful commeicial activity on the inteinet anu the meie tiansitoiy passive piesence in cybeispace of the
allegeu uefamatoiy mateiial." Theie was no eviuence that the allegeu uefamatoiy mateiial was ieau by
anyone in Texas (>&)1"0%:< 3 N('01/U GTTT ^))-).
#&#N?,)(#"-%` H('+I,#$/
In Canaua, we now (at common law) iecognize non-pecuniaiy oiueis, most commonly a foieign injunction,
but also othei foims of equitable oiueis fiom othei Canauian as well as non-Canauian juiisuictions.
+59521C S21F5_82f: You stait with the tiauitional iules foi iecognition anu enfoicement (M(&2/)&;) anu
then theie aie auu ons foi non-pecuniaiy oiueis: we'ie not going to enfoice oiueis that we woulu nevei
makeenfoice ouiselves (8"#. "! * #$5%:#"5%.+X4%##"# %4*&$) (F&( 9,1"2 3 G+0) OaaA /))).
M13482= 48 389=6@52: may incluue the ciiteiia that guiue Canauian couits in ciafting uomestic oiueis, such as:
(a) Aie the teims of the oiuei cleai anu specific enough to ensuie that the uefenuant will know what is
expecteu fiom him oi hei. - |-*8 ." 7$ 51$*# 8" ,$ <"'C. -*;$ ." 8:$521*.$ *7"2. ,-*. .-$ !"#$%&' H2<&$
4$*'. ,-$' -$ 4*<$ .-%8 "#<$#j
(b) Is the oiuei limiteu in its scope anu uiu the oiiginating couit ietain the powei to issue fuithei oiueis.
(c) Is the enfoicement the least buiuensome iemeuy foi the Canauian justice system.
(u) Is the Canauian litigant exposeu to unfoieseen obligations.
(e) Aie any thiiu paities affecteu by the oiuei.
(f) Will the use of juuicial iesouices be consistent with what woulu be alloweu foi uomestic litigants.
The non-pecuniaiy oiuei also has to be i691C 19@ 3893C;=6>5 (4*H"#%.+), but not necessaiily in the sense of
being the last possible step in the litigation piocess. But it must be final in the sense of being i6B5@ 19@
@5i695@. $05 59S82369Q 38;24 319984 <5 1=f5@ 48 1@@ 82 =;<42134 S28F 405 8<C6Q14689! $05 82@52 F;=4
<5 38FJC545 19@ 984 69 955@ 8S S;4;25 5C1<8214689 (F&( 9,1"2d ?5[*2&-1%' a 51*#%!+%'& %' -$# <%88$'.Z *'
%'.$#1"52."#+ "#<$#8 :(/+; 4$$. .-$ V%'*1 *'< 5"'5128%;$ 5#%.$#%* !"# :2#:"8$8 "! #$5"&'%.%"' *'< $'!"#5$4$'.Z
<%8*&#$$4$'. 7$.,$$' 4*H"#%.+ *'< <%88$'. %' .-%8 5*8$ ,*8 .-$ *::1%5*.%"' "! .-$ :#%'5%:1$8 ." .-$ 5*8$ *. 7*#)!
)C1264D iequiies that an oiuei be sufficiently ;91F<6Q;8;= 48 <5 59S8235@. The enfoicing couit cannot be
askeu to claiify ambiguous teims in the oiuei. The obligation to be enfoiceu must cleaily establish what is
iequiieu of the juuicial appaiatus in the enfoicing juiisuiction.
@".$( .-$#$ ,%11 :#"7*71+ 7$ 4"#$ '"'d:$52'%*#+ "#<$#8 .-*' :$52'%*#+ "#<$#8 .-*. ,$C11 #$H$5. ." #$5"&'%G$ *'<
$'!"#5$ 7$5*28$ .-$+ .$'< '". ." 7$ *8 51$*# %' .-$%# .$#48 *8 :$52'%*#+ "#<$#8F
@".$ #$ $'!"#5$*7%1%.+ "! 6*'.%d82%. %'H2'5.%"'89( *' *'.%d82%. %'H2'5.%"' ,"21< 8$$4 ." 4$$. .-$ *7";$ 5#%.$#%*
:#$..+ $*8%1+( 1%4%.$< %' 85":$> $.5F W' .-$ ".-$# -*'<> *' 6*'.%d82%. %'H2'5.%"'9 4*+ $;"E$ !$$1%'&8 "! -"8.%1%.+ %'
.-$ !"#24 ,-$#$ %. %8 7$%'& $'!"#5$<F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
27
',M,#),/
Even if the foieign couit (Canauian oi non-Canauian) hau juiisuiction in the inteinational sense anu ueliveieu
a final anu conclusive juugment (as uefineu by the lex foii) anu we ueciue that the foieign juugment fits within
oui iecognition iules, it is still possible foi the uefenuant in the iecognition anu enfoicement action to iaise
uefences to avoiu iecognition anu enfoicement. @".$( .-$ 72#<$' "! :#""! %8 "' .-$ <$!$'<*'.F
>%)+' 3 9)+;<)") D[[Q 9WW $A.$'<$< .-$ M(&2)/&; #21$ ." '"'d0*'*<%*' H2<&4$'.8F 38 * #$821.> .-$ 5"2#.8
*#$ &"%'& ." 7$ !*5$< ,%.- * 425- &#$*.$# ;*#%$.+ "! !"#$%&' H2<&4$'.8 *'< .-$+ *11 *&#$$< .-*. %. 4%&-. 7$
'$5$88*#+ %' .-$ !2.2#$ ." 5#$*.$ * '$, <$!$'5$F b#*5.%5*1 5-*11$'&$( %! .-$#$ %8 8"4$.-%'& $A.#*"#<%'*#+ .-*.
-*::$'$< %' .-$ !"#$%&' :#"5$$<%'& .-*. +"2 5*'C. 7#%'& 2'<$# .-$ 5"44"' 1*, <$!$'5$8 "# $A5128%"'*#+ #21$8>
+"2 5*' !"#421*.$ * '$, <$!$'5$F
$U, ,[).(/"&#-%` %(.,/
The exclusionaiy iules (penal laws, ievenue laws, public laws, juugments anu laws contiaiy to public policy)
aie always available. @".$( 8$$ :271%5 :"1%5+ "' '$A. :*&$F
M%-('
Foiget about uiawing a uistinction between intiinsic fiauu anu extiinsic fiauu (extiinsic anu intiinsic fiauu
aie 5>6@594612D 3145Q8265=: extiinsic woulu be eviuence uiscoveieu aftei, intiinsic woulu be something that
was pait of the consiueiation (K)"2 OaGa ^))-)), we talk about fiauu going to Z;26=@634689 8S 405 S8256Q9
38;24 anu fiauu going to the F5264= 8S 405 S8256Q9 @536=689 (>%)+' 3 9)+;<)"))! These aie =;<Z534
3145Q8265= (K)"2 ^))-).
M21;@ Q869Q 48 405 Z;26=@634689 8S 405 S8256Q9 38;24 can always be iaiseu if somehow, somebouy tiickeu the
foieign couit into taking juiisuiction when its own law uiun't have juiisuiction (lying about facts, oi getting
someone to sign something, etc.). It's the plaintiff who is tiicking the couit (not the couit committing fiauu)
(>%)+' 3 9)+;<)")). The uue uiligence iequiiement foi fiauu going to the meiits uoesn't uiiectly apply heie
<;4 theie shoulu be a veiy gieat ieluctance in the BC couit iecognizing a foieign juugment to finu that the
foieign couit hau no juiisuiction (K)"2 ^))-). So theie is no uue uiligence, but it is a high thiesholu, it has to
be veiy cleaily establisheu.
^;4 S21;@ Q869Q 48 405 F5264= can be iaiseu as a uefence only if the 1CC5Q14689= 125 95_ 19@ 984 405
=;<Z534 8S 1 J2682 1@Z;@6314689 (oi theie aie new anu mateiial facts not pieviously uiscoveiable with uue
uiligence). You can't just sit back, let the plaintiff in the foieign action asseit things, not challenge them, anu
then claim fiauu. You have to uo youi best anu you have to exeicise uue uiligence (>%)+' 3 9)+;<)")).
^%,-)U &M #-$(%-. H(/$"),
Basically, the appioach of the SCC is that we'ie not suie if we can tiust non-Canauian juiisuictions, so theie is
heighteneu sciutiny.
When this uefence is iaiseu, we'ie looking to ensuie that theie was nothing that occuiieu in the foieign action
which is 3894212D 48 )191@619 984689= 8S S;9@1F5941C Z;=4635 (by oui stanuaius) (>%)+' 3 9)+;<)"))! M162
J2835== is one that ieasonably guaiantees basic pioceuuial safeguaius such as juuicial inuepenuence, faii
ethical iules (MM 82&&$8.8 .-*. .-$ "1< *#&24$'.8 *7"2. '*.2#*1 H28.%5$ -*;$ ." <" ,%.- &$..%'& +"2# <*+ %' 5"2#.>
&$..%'& *' "::"#.2'%.+ ." 7$ -$*#<> &$..%'& '".%5$ "! .-$ *5.%"'> $.5.).
The question is whethei theie was a bieach of natuial justice in .-%8 :*#.%521*# *5.%"' (.-%8 %8 .-$ <%88$'. %'
>%)+' 3 9)+;<)") 72. !*# 4"#$ 5"';%'5%'&> <%88$'. V%'<8 7#$*5- "! '*.2#*1 H28.%5$ %' D1"#%<* :#"5$$<%'&8). You
can have a faii legal system on the whole, but things can go wiong in inuiviuual cases. /2. %! +"2C#$ *5.%'& !"#
.-$ :1*%'.%!!> +"2 5*' *#&2$ .-$ 4*H"#%.+ <$5%8%"' !"528%'& "' .-$ 1$&*1 8+8.$4 *8 * ,-"1$F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
28
)&#$%-%` $& M&%(I ?(^.") ?&.")`
Is the foieign law is contiaiy to basic moiality. Najoi } is veiy ieluctant to use the contiaiy to foium public
policy uefence (>%)+' 3 9)+;<)")) because when you uo that, you aie effectively conuemning the foieign law,
you'ie saying the foieign law tuins oui stomach, it's contiaiy to oui funuamental notions anu juuges have a
ieluctance to saying that about the laws of othei legal systems. @".$( 8$$ $A5128%"'*#+ #21$8F
#& ',M,#), &M ,%%&% &M .-V
Theie is no "eiioi of law" uefence, i.e. that the foieign couit got the law wiong (V(;;)&; 3 V&)- GERa (]U.),
D#$'5- 5"2#. &$.8 .-$ M'&1%8- 1*, ,#"'&> M'&1%8- 5"2#. <$4"'8.#*.$8 $A.#$4$ 8$1!d#$8.#*%'. *'< 8*+8> '":$> #$8
H2<%5*.*> ,$ *#$ '". &"%'& ." 8%. *8 *' *::$*1 5"2#. "' .-$ 4$#%.8 "! * !"#$%&' <$5%8%"').
/$-$($&%` %,+"I,/
The legislatuie ovei the uecaues has gotten involveu in enacting statutes to ueal with iecognition of foieign
juugments anu also of aibitial awaius.
Foi S8256Q9 Z;@QF594=, theie aie S statutes:
1. W(/&0 S&;%& G"6(&:%*%"0 4:0 F)&0 D (useu to be in the k$5%:#"5*1 M'!"#5$4$'. *'< a2<&4$'.8 35.)
2. G"6(&:%*%"0 (6 W)");1)" 7/;2*%"0' )"; ?%:&%%' 4:0
S. 9/$&%*% W(/&0 W131+ C/+%' which apply to pioceuuial iules
Foi 12<6421C 1_12@=, theie aie 2 BC statutes:
1. ^(&%12" 4&B10&)+ 4,)&;' 4:0
2. !"0%&")01(")+ W(**%&:1)+ 4&B10&)01(" 4:0
@".$( .-$#$ %8 *18" * 8.*.2.$ !"# 4*%'.$'*'5$X82::"#. "#<$#8> ,-%5- *#$ '". $'!"#5$*71$ *. 5"44"' 1*,
OY'.$#H2#%8<%5.%"'*1 I2::"#. W#<$#8 35. R * 8:$5%*1 8.*.2.$ !"# !"#$%&' 82::"#. "#<$#8PF
"9 ^)g 405 C6F6414689 J5268@ S82 59S82369Q 1 S8256Q9 Z;@QF594 ;9@52 =414;45 6= 405 =1F5:
(a) 1u yeais commencing fiom the enfoicement uate of the foieign juugment 0R
(b) the limitation peiiou of the oiiginating juiisuiction %! %.C8 8-"#.$#.
@".$( .-$ 1%4%.*.%"' :$#%"<8 *#$ %' ".-$# :#";%'5$8 4*+ 7$ <%!!$#$'.F
H('+I,#$/ -#' &%',%/
A plaintiffjuugment cieuitoi's eligibility to use a statutoiy methou of enfoicement uepenus on the place of
oiigin of the juugment to be enfoiceu:
(a) G"6(&:%*%"0 (6 W)");1)" 7/;2*%"0' )"; ?%:&%%' 4:0 (EC}BA) can be useu 89CD S82 )191@619
Z;@QF594= (i.e. fiom othei piovinces)
(b) W(/&0 S&;%& G"6(&:%*%"0 4:0 F)&0 D (useu to be in the k$5%:#"5*1 M'!"#5$4$'. *'< a2<&4$'.8 35.)
can be useu foi juugments oiiginating fiom the juiisuictions that aie listeu.
/".- 8.*.2.$8 *#$ *<":.%"'8 %' /0 "! 4"<$1 *5.8 <#*!.$< 7+ .-$ T'%!"#4 [*, 0"'!$#$'5$ "! 0*'*<*F h%#.2*11+
$;$#+ :#";%'5$ *<":.$< .-$ "#%&%'*1 4"<$1 *5.> .-"2&- '". '$5$88*#%1+ ,%.- %<$'.%5*1 ,"#<%'& %' $;$#+ :#";%'5$F
/".- 8.*.2.$8 4"<%!+ .-$ $&(:%;/&% !"# 5"';$#.%'& * !"#$%&' H2<&4$'.F Y'8.$*< "! 7#%'&%'& * 5"44"' 1*, *5.%"'
*'< %882%'& * '".%5$ "! 5%;%1 51*%4> $.5F> .-*. :#"5$88 "! 7#%'&%'& * 5"44"' 1*, *5.%"' "' * !"#$%&' H2<&4$'. %8
#$:1*5$< 7+ * #$&%8.#*.%"' :#"5$<2#$ R 5-$*:> $!V%5%$'.> '%5$ 8-"#. 1%4%.*.%"' :$#%"<8F
If you have a client with a foieign juugment which that client wishes to have iecognizeu anu enfoiceu in BC
the fiist thing you shoulu ask is: _014 6= 405 826Q691469Q Z;26=@634689. If it is a )191@619 Z;@QF594, go
uiiectly to the GW7?4, uo not pass go, uo not hesitate. If it is a Canauian juugment (except Quebec) oi a 989N
)191@619 J53;9612D Z;@QF594 S28F 1 Z;26=@634689 C6=45@ 69 405 25Q;C14689= unuei the C0EA, you may be
able to use the WSG4 F)&0 D. Foi eveiything else, you have to use the common law.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
29
)191@619 H;@QF594=
5<% G"6(&:%*%"0 (6 W)");1)" 7/;2*%"0' )"; ?%:&%%' 4:0 takes the M(&2/)&; iecognition anu
enfoicement iule to its logical conclusion: we now have <C69@ S;CC S1640 19@ 325@64 (foi othei piovince's
juugments) manuateu by the WG7?4 ('O eIQJ).
Theie hasn't been a single case uealing with the application of the EC}BA. It appeais to be woiking peifectly. It
piohibits the iecognizing couit fiom consiueiing whethei the othei Canauian couit hau juiisuiction, even in
the M(&2/)&; sense - we uon't consiuei lack of juiisuiction in the othei Canauian couit. This is why it is blinu
full faith anu cieuit - we piay they weie iight.
Seconuly, the GW7?4 iequiies the BC couits to iecognize anu enfoice both J53;9612D Z;@QF594= anu 989N
J53;9612D 82@52= 19@ @53255= ('O Y). So it also incoipoiates F&( 9,1"2 3 G+0).
Lastly, GW7?4 eliminates both uefences of S21;@ anu <25130 8S 914;21C Z;=4635 in the foieign couit. This is not
eviuent on the face of the statute but that's what the 0nifoim Law Confeience of Canaua saiu was intenueu its
commentaiy on the piovisions of the EC}BA so that's how 'O eIQJI:J has been inteipieteu. ,2282 8S C1_ is also
not a uefence ('O eIQJIBJ). But the c3894212D 48 J;<C63 J8C63De uefence is still theie ('O eIDJI:JI13J) but the
chances of you successfully iaising a public policy uefence in BC foi an 0ntaiio juugment is pietty minimal.
#89N)191@619 H;@QF594=
5<% W(/&0 S&;%& G"6(&:%*%"0 4:0 F)&0 D is just a couification (anu not a veiy goou one) of the common law
iules foi iecognition anu enfoicement. The WSG4 &%2/+)01("' have a list of juiisuictions ueclaieu to be
iecipiocating states foi the puiposes of the act: all Canauian teiiitoiies anu piovinces (except Quebec)
-;=421C61: all states anu teiiitoiies (/: Alaska, Califoinia, Coloiauo, Iuaho, 0iegon, Washington - '".$(
New Yoik, Texas '". %'512<$< ,;28J5: Austiia, ueimany, the 0K. Foi juiisuictions with which we uo not
have iecipiocating agieements, you have to go to the common law.
The M(&2/)&; basis (of ieal anu substantial connection) foi iecognition anu enfoicement is not available
unuei the WSG4 (W%"0&)+ V/)&)"0- 5&/'0 GTTY #V$%, ca <%< -%8 <*4'$8. ." #$*< ?"#&2*#< %' 72. 5"21<'C.).
B0T %! you can iely on the tiauitional iules (piesence oi submission) anu %! the juugment is fiom a
iecipiocating state, then the WSG4 is a goou bet. "4 6= 5SS5346>5CD J25NM(&2/)&; 38FF89 C1_ 2;C5= foi
iecognition anu enfoicement of juugments, the auvantage being that it uses a iegistiation piocess so you uon't
have to stait an action - that was the whole point of it. /2. %. %8 &"%'& ." 7$ %'!#$U2$'.1+ 28$< 7$5*28$ %.C8 H28.
'". *;*%1*71$> +"2# H2<&4$'.8 *#$'C. &"%'& ." 7$ $1%&%71$F
The C0EA has been inteipieteu as being limiteu to iecognition anu enfoicement of 826Q691C Z;@QF594=. It
was not intenueu to iecognize juugments iecognizeu by othei juiisuictions ("chaining") (S,%" 3 C(:U%01"6(
OaaE ^))-).
So you have a >52D C6F645@ =414;45 in teims of its applicability. You have to have an oiiginal, pecuniaiy
(common law pie-?"#&2*#<) juugment fiom a juiisuiction which has enteieu into a iecipiocal agieement
with BC anu is listeu in the iegulations. So foi non-Canauian juugments, you will piobably want to go to the
common law in the enu because in the WSG4, you get a simplifieu pioceuuie, but you uon't get the M(&2/)&;
iule anu that limits the numbei of juugments that aie going to be iegistiable.
WSG4 J2835@;25: (1) the foieign juugment cieuitoi iegisteis a juugment ($A :*#.$) (2) that juugment
cieuitoi has Su uays to notify the uefenuant, the BC juugment uebtoi (S) then the uefenuant in the iecognition
anu enfoicement action gets Su uays to iaise uefences (establish a lack of juiisuiction oi one of the common
law uefences) which aie incoipoiateu anu couifieu in the C0EA.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
Su
-%^"$%-. -V-%'/
Foi 12<6421C 1_12@=, theie aie 2 BC statutes:
1. ^(&%12" 4&B10&)+ 4,)&;' 4:0
2. !"0%&")01(")+ W(**%&:1)+ 4&B10&)01(" 4:0
Both these statutes iequiie BC couits to iecognize anu enfoice foieign aibitiation awaius, howevei this
iequiiement is not absolute. Theie aie @5S5935= available unuei the statutes (so they aie subject to the
inteipietation of the statute by the couit).
@".$( the aibitiation acts aie not the only ioute to go in getting iecognition anu enfoicement of an aibitial
awaiu. It may be (*8 -*::$'$< %' 9<&%0%& 3 V)'*):) that the foieign aibitial awaiu can be iegisteieu in the
foieign couit, it then becomes 59S82351<C5 1= 1 Z;@QF594 which woulu be enfoiceable unuei the WSG4 as a
foieign juugment. But unuei the aibitiation statutes, you can go uiiectly to asking the BC couits to have the
aibitial awaiu iecognizeu anu enfoiceu.
We aie not conceineu with juiisuiction of the foieign aibitiatoi because it is consensual, but we aie
conceineu that 405 1Q255F594 48 12<642145 6= >1C6@! Theie may be some legal systems which uo not consiuei
an agieement to aibitiate valiu foi a paiticulai contiact. MA*4:1$( .-$#$ %8 1$&%81*.%"' %' 0*'*<* .-*. #$'<$#8
*&#$$4$'.8 ." *#7%.#*.$ * 5"'824$# 5"'.#*5. ;"%<F
If theie is a valiu agieement, then that 1Q255F594 6= =;<Z534 48 69452J25414689 to ensuie that it coveis the
paiticulai uispute. It may be that the paities faileu to make theii agieement to aibitiate clause bioau enough
anu it uoesn't covei the paiticulai situation.
Then the question becomes: what @5S5935= can be iaiseu.
(1) @".$( F52Q52 8S 405 12<64214689 19@ 405 Z;@QF594 984 1 @5S5935. The F52Q52 2;C5 @85= 984 1JJCD 69 1
389iC634= 38945B4 (9:<&%0%& 3 V)'*): GTTO &#)-). 0N (anu BC) uo not consiuei the foieign cause of action
foieign aibitiation to be meigeu into the juugment, so you can go <%#$5.1+ to the iecognition anu enfoicement
of the aibitial awaiu, even if it has been iegisteieu somewheie else as a juugment, you uon't have to go to that
juugment (this is a question foi the foium using 1$A !"#%) (9:<&%0%& 3 V)'*):, *#7%.#*.%"' *,*#< V%1$< 7+ l3
5"#: %' l3 *8 * H2<&4$'.> l3 5"#: *::1%$8 !"# #$5"&'%.%"' *'< $'!"#5$4$'. "! .-$ *#7%.#*1 *,*#< %' W@F =$!$'5$
*#&2$<( l3 5"#: 5*'C. 7#%'& *' *5.%"' !"# #$5"&'%.%"' *'< $'!"#5$4$'. "! .-$ *#7%.#*1 *,*#< 7$5*28$ %. -*8 7$$'
#$&%8.$#$< %' l3 *8 * * H2<&4$'. R !*%1$<F @(0%E 0<1' 1' )" S@ :)'%> 72. 8*4$ <$!$'5$8 *#$ *;*%1*71$ %' /0 *'<
.-$ <%8:"8%.%"' "! .-$ *#&24$'. ,"21< 1%E$1+ 7$ .-$ 8*4$)F
@".$( common law uomestic iule: youi cause of action meiges in the juugment (#$8 H2<%5*.*), you can't biing
anothei action on the oiiginal cause of action if theie has been a juugment on it.
(2) <25130 8S 914;21C Z;=4635 (pioviueu foi in statute in 0N anu BC): 1<=5935 8S 251=89= :(/+; be founu to
be a <25130 8S 914;21C Z;=4635 (it is a valiu uefence). You neeu to know why the aibitiatoi came to the
juugment that he uiu (how uo you know how to ueal with the meiits of the awaiu in uA in teims of appealing
it, etc., unless you have ieasons) (9:<&%0%& 3 V)'*):, <$!$'5$ *#&2$<( .-$ *#7%.#*."# <%<'C. &%;$ #$*8"'8 !"# .-$
*,*#<. W' .-$ !*5.8> W@03 <%< '". V%'< * 7#$*5- "! '*.2#*1 H28.%5$).
(S) <25130 8S S82;F J;<C63 J8C63D: this is a iesiuual uefence to *'+.-%'& univeisally - eveiy legal system in
the woilu ietains this iesiuual, last bit of uiscietion (they uon't want to have to be in the position of having to
enfoice a juugment which is inconsistent with theii funuamental values). This is a '*##", uefence: theie's got
to be something that is inconsistent with oui !2'<*4$'.*1 ;*12$8. -335C5214689 8S 28D1C4D J1DF594= :(/+;
"(0 be saiu to be so ueploiable anu uistasteful that it is inconsistent with 0ntaiio's funuamental values
(9:<&%0%& 3 V)'*):, <$!$'5$ *#&2$<( *55$1$#*.%"' "! #"+*1.+ :*+4$'.8 O,-%5- "552##$< 2'<$# .-$ 5"'.#*5.P %8
%'5"'8%8.$'. ,%.- "2# !2'<*4$'.*1 :#%'5%:1$8 - !*%1$<.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S1
).-// -)$"&#/
We have to consiuei othei conuitionsciicumstances when askeu to iecognize a foieign class action juugment,
especially in a case in which the plaintiff uoesn't want it iecognizeu anu enfoiceu (W/&&1% 3 M):?(")+;L'
OaaY &#)-, enuoiseu by SCC). We'ie not talking about the uefenuant heie - that's the uifficulty in class
actions. It is the :1*%'.%!! who was incluueu in the foieign action who now says, I uon't want to be bounu by
that, I want to biing my own action heie.
/8F5 32645261 S82 405 2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 8S S8256Q9 3C1== 134689=:
(1) We stait with the 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 oi 405 421@646891C <1=5=. (2) You then have to ask, in
auuition, whethei the 989N25=6@594 JC16946SS= _525 1@5h;145CD 25J25=5945@ anu also whethei those non-
iesiuent plaintiffs weie accoiueu J2835@;21C S16295==g in paiticulai, weie the non-iesiuent plaintiffs in the
foieign class action piopeily notifieu about theii options. Y' $!!$5.> ,$ -*;$ 72%1. %' 8"4$ "! .-$ <$!$'5$8 %'."
.-$ #$5"&'%.%"' #21$ !"# 51*88 *5.%"'8( :#"5$<2#*1 !*%#'$88> *<$U2*.$ '".%5$> <%< -$ -*;$ -%8 <*+ %' 5"2#.> <%< -$
-*;$ *' "::"#.2'%.+ ." ":. "2.F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S2
H(%"/'")$"&#: !@ CGM -)$"&#/
Foi juiisuictional puiposes, a ieal anu substantial connection is piesumeu to exist (i.e. BC will have teiiitoiial
competence) if the (movable oi immovable) J28J524D 6= C83145@ 69 ^) (W7F54 'O Y[I:JI1J). Note, howevei,
that this uoesn't necessaiily ueciue that we aie the most appiopiiate foium foi the action (uiscietion).
$U, I&)-I^"X(, %(.,
In common law juiisuictions (unless mouifieu by statute), a S82;F 38;24 _6CC 984 41f5 Z;26=@634689 in
actions ielating to title in C19@ 4014 6= C83145@ 8;4=6@5 8S 64= Z;26=@634689 (#%&-. ." .%.1$X:"88$88%"' "! 1*'<>
.#$8:*88 ." 1*'<) (M(:)*B1P/% GETP (]U. #$*!V%#4$< %' .%'$%&1;%' .(0%+' GTRT (]U., '".-%'& -*8
5-*'&$< 8%'5$ K_^f> ,$ 8.%11 <"'C. -*;$ :",$# ." $'!"#5$ "2# "#<$#8).
H;=46i6314689: It woulu be pointless. We can't enfoice it. We coulu take juiisuiction anu give the iemeuies but
how can we stop the uefenuant going back to the place wheie the immovable is locateu anu unuoing what
we've uone.
,[),?$"&#/ $& $U, I&)-I^"X(, %(.,
?1:%- C/+% YDDIQJE M(:)*B1P/% C/+% )"; 10' %H:%$01("'
The couit has no juiisuiction to enteitain pioceeuings foi ueteimination of title to, oi the iight to possession
of, immovable piopeity situateu outsiue Englanu(0*'*<*) EXCEPT wheie:
(a) the claim is <1=5@ 89 1 38942134 82 5h;64D between the paities;
So you aie fiaming the claim as an %' :$#8"'*4 contiact oi equitable claim (])&; 3 W(6a1" GTRO #^/)n
M1"%&) 42/1+1"% OaaA ^)/)). In ])&; 3 W(6a1"8 the couit coulu awaiu uamages oi an oiuei foi specific
peifoimance ($U2%.*71$) - both of these aie 1" $%&'(")* 25F5@65=. The couit coulu not .#*'8!$# the title
to the plaintiff, it coulu only "#<$# .-$ <$!$'<*'. to get it uone.
@".$( %' 0*'*<*> ,$ *#$ '", *18" :#$:*#$< ." #$5"&'%G$ *'< $'!"#5$ %' :$#8"'*4 %P/10)B+% "#<$#8 O$AF
8:$5%V%5 :$#!"#4*'5$P *. 1$*8. "! 0*'*<%*' 5"2#.8> :#"7*71+ "! !"#$%&' 5"2#.8 *8 ,$11 (F&( 9,1"2 3 G+0)).
(b) the question has to be ueciueu foi the puipose of the 1@F696=4214689 8S 19 5=4145 82 1 42;=4 ANB the
piopeity consists of 6FF8>1<C5 19@ F8>1<C5= 69 ,9QC19@ 1= _5CC 1= 6FF8>1<C5= 8;4=6@5 8S ,9QC19@.
I" %! +"2C#$ <$*1%'& ,%.- ;*1%<%.+ "! ,%118X%'.$8.*5+X$.5 *'< .-$#$ %8 1*'< *'< *18" 4";*71$ :#":$#.+ %' /0 O%F$F
8"4$ "! .-$ $8.*.$ %8 -$#$P 72. .-$#$ %8 *18" 8"4$ 1*'< "2.8%<$ "! /0> .-$ /0 5"2#. 5*' .*E$ H2#%8<%5.%"' *'<
<$5%<$ 8255$88%"' ." .-*. :#":$#.+ "2.8%<$ "! /0F
'1F1Q5 48 F8>1<C5 19@ 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D: In ciicumstances wheie theie is uamage to the foieign
immovable piopeity but the pleauings inuicate that a substantial piopoition of uamages may well be founu to
be uamages to 4";*71$ piopeity, the couits may be staiting to make an incuision into the M(:)*B1P/% iule
(V(;+%- 3 W(+%' GTEE &#U), '". ;$#+ *2.-"#%.*.%;$ 72. 4*+ %'<%5*.$ * 0*'*<%*' U2*1%V%5*.%"' "! .-$
?"5*47%U2$ #21$F W@ 5"2#. .*E$8 H2#%8<%5.%"'> .-$ !*5. .-*. .-$#$ %8 8"4$ <*4*&$ ." %44";*71$ :#":$#.+ 8-"21<
'". <%8$'.%.1$ b !#"4 7#%'&%'& *5.%"' %' W@ ,-$' .%.1$ ." 1*'< %8 '". %' <%8:2.$).
/&: the M(:)*B1P/% iule (wheie the couit ,%11 '". take juiisuiction) is ieally only limiteu to situations
involving 26Q04 48 464C5KJ8==5==689 8S C19@ anu 425=J1== 48 C19@. Foi an %' :$#8"'*4 action, it uoesn't mattei
if the claims involve a foieign immovable piopeity, the couit will take juiisuiction.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
SS
%,)&+#"$"&# -#' ,#M&%),I,#$: "# %,I H('+I,#$/
Canauian couits ,%11 '". iecognize anu enfoice S8256Q9 1" &%* Z;@QF594= uealing with title to C831C C19@, noi
will they iecognize anu enfoice S8256Q9 1" $%&'(")* 5h;641<C5 82@52= uealing with title to C831C C19@ (?/U%
3 4";+%& GTPO /)), 03 H2<&4$'. 4*+ -*;$ 7$$' %' :$#8"'*4 72. .-$ :#":$#.+ ,*8 %' /0 *'< /0 5"2#.8 ,%11 '".
8.*'< !"# * !"#$%&' 5"2#. <$5%<%'& ,-*. ,%11 -*::$' ." 1*'< -$#$).
Theie have been no challenges to this case. So in theoiy, this is still goou law B0T 14 405 1" $%&'(")* C5>5C,
we now iecognize %' :$#8"'*4 non-pecuniaiy juugments (i.e. equitable oiueis) (F&( 9,1"2 3 G+0) OaaA /))).
I" %! * !"#$%&' %' :$#8"'*4 '"'d:$52'%*#+ H2<&4$'. 5*4$ ." * 5"44"' 1*, 5"2#. %' 0*'*<* 0(;)-> ,$ "2&-. *.
1$*8. ." 5"'8%<$# ,-$.-$# ." #$5"&'%G$ %.F Y. %8 )0 +%)'0 %+121B+% 6(& :("'1;%&)01("O
-4 405 1" &%* C5>5C, it may still be goou law, but we may be constitutionally obligateu to iecognize the
juugment if it is fiom anothei )191@619 J28>6935 (GW7?4 'O eIQJ8 71%'< !211 !*%.- *'< 5#$<%.Z GW7?4 'O Y,
<$V%'%.%"' "! 60*'*<%*' H2<&4$'.9 * H2<&4$'. .-*. O5P <$51*#$8 #%&-.8 %' #$1*.%"' ." * :$#8"' "# .-%'&).
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S4
)U&"), &M .-V
Even at the juiisuiction stage, you can't ignoie choice of law issues. You neeu to have at least a goou iueabe
able to pieuict what law a potential foium will apply to the meiits of the action if that couit takes juiisuiction.
"Y! Y 1%.%&*.$ %' I.*.$ 3> .-*. 5"2#.C8 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$8 ,%11 1%E$1+ :#"<25$ *::1%5*.%"' "! * :*#.%521*# 1*, R %8 .-*.
&""< "# 7*< !"# 4+ 51%$'.Q Y! Y 1%.%&*.$ %' I.*.$ /> ,-*. 1$&*1 8+8.$4 ,%11 .-$ 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$8 "! 8.*.$ / ,%11
8$1$5. !"# *::1%5*.%"' ." .-$ 4$#%.8 "! .-$ 5*8$Q9
@".$( if theie is a choice of law issue in a conflicts case, you aie peimitteu to not iaise it, not to ask the couit to
apply the choice of law iule (389=J6213D 8S =6C5935: neithei counsel wants to iaise the choice of law issue).
The only ieason you woulu want to invoke a choice of law iule anu peisuaue the couit to apply that choice of
law iule anu apply the law of anothei juiisuiction is if the application of that law woulu benefit youi client,
otheiwise, just go with BC law.
k$4$47$#( foieign law is tieateu as a question of fact. In a common law juiisuiction, you have to pleau anu
piove the foieign law by means of an expeit in that foieign law.
The typical common law 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 has a 389953469Q S13482. The connecting factoi :"%'.8 the couit
(the foium) to a paiticulai legal system. 0nce the choice of law iule has pointeu the couit to a paiticulai legal
system, then the foium applies the ielevant laws of .-*. legal system. The appioach is the same but the
connecting factoi may be uiffeient.
MA*4:1$( tiauitional choice of law iule goveining foimal valiuity of a maiiiage: "foimal valiuity of a maiiiage
(.-$ %882$) is goveineu by the law of 405 JC135 _0525 405 F12261Q5 _1= 35C5<2145@ (.-$ 5"''$5.%'& !*5."#)."
MA*4:1$( tiauitional choice of law iule goveining succession: "essential valiuity of a will ielating to movables
(.-$ %882$) is goveineu by the law of 405 @8F636C5 8S 405 45=41482 14 405 @145 8S @5140 (5"''$5.%'& !*5."#)."
%,#\&" W $U, "#)"',#$-. X(,/$"&#
%,#\&"
C%"3(1 focuses on an ambiguity in the tiauitional choice of law iule. The connecting factoi in a choice of law
iule will point the couit to the laws of a paiticulai legal system, but theie is no uefinition in the choice of law
iules of "the law" to be applieu: uo we mean uomestic law oi conflicts law ("whatevei that couit woulu uo").
In BC, we have BC @8F5=463 C1_= but we have special iules (389iC634= 2;C5=: juiisuiction, iecognition anu
enfoicement, choice of law) foi situations wheie the facts aie not Canauiantheie aie foieign elements.
(1) The (&;1")&- 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 applies the @8F5=463 C1_ of the juiisuiction selecteu by the choice of
law iule (the connecting factoi). I" 4"8. "! .-$ .%4$> ,$ ,"21< *8E 6,-*. %8 .-$ <"4$8.%5 1*, "! .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"'
,-$#$ .-$ 4*##%*&$ ,*8 5$1$7#*.$<Q9 *'< H28. *::1+ .-*. <"4$8.%5 1*,F
(2) ?12461C %59>86E 9(*%01*%', the foium will look to the 389iC634= 2;C5= of the foieign juiisuiction (the 1$A
5*28*$> the law selecteu by oui choice of law iules). If the foium looks at the conflicts iule of the 1$A 5*28*$
insteau of simply looking at its uomestic law, the foium may winu up applying the law of a thiiu legal system
(4219=F6==689) oi it may winu up applying its own law (25F6==689).
In Paiial Renvoi, the foium will look to the 389iC634= 2;C5 of the foieign juiisuiction anu then apply the
@8F5=463 C1_ that .-$ !"#$%&' H2#%8<%5.%"'C8 5"'V1%5.8 #21$ woulu uiiect it to.
(5"'.C<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
SS
I" ,$ 4*+ *8E 6,-*. %8 .-$ 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$ "! .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"' ,-$#$ .-$ 4*##%*&$ ,*8 5$1$7#*.$<Q9 c-%8 V%#8.
-*::$'$< *55%<$'.*11+> 72. '", %. -*::$'8 <$1%7$#*.$1+> *1.-"2&- 8"4$.%4$8 8.%11 *55%<$'.*11+ %! +"2 *8E .-$
!"#$%&' 1*, $A:$#. .-$ ,#"'& U2$8.%"'.
GH)*$+%E Ava anu Colin got maiiieu in uieece. Theie is latei litigation in NY; the issue is the foimal valiuity of
the maiiiage. NY choice of law iule says "foimal valiuity is goveineu by the law of the place wheie the
maiiiage was celebiateu (which is uieece)."
! S&;1")&- :<(1:% (6 +), &/+%E If the NY couit uses an oiuinaiy choice of law iule, it woulu then ask, "what
is the uomestic law of the place wheie the maiiiage was celebiateu (uieece)." So it woulu apply the
uomestic law of uieece.
! F)&01)+ C%"3(1E If the NY couit uses ?12461C %59>86, it woulu then ask, "what is the choice of law iule of
the place wheie the maiiiage was celebiateu (uieece)." uieece's choice of law iule says "foimal valiuity of
a maiiiage is goveineu by the law of the place of nationality."
! 5&)"'*1''1("E If Ava anu Colin aie nationals of Canaua, theie is .#*'84%88%"' to a thiiu legal system
(Canaua). So the NY couit woulu apply the law of Canaua.
! C%*1''1("E If Ava anu Colin aie nationals of NY (0SA), theie is a iemission back to the foium's legal
system (NY). So the NY couit woulu apply its own law.
(S) $841C %59>86: The foium (*5.2*11+> .-$ %<%". 5"2'8$1 ,-" <"$8'C. E'", ,-*. -$C8 &$..%'& -%48$1! %'.") will
look to the foieign juiisuiction anu ask the foieign law expeit: "how woulu D8;2 38;24 solve this case." Now
you'ie in ueep shit, because you'ie open to any iesult. Theie aie S8;2 8J4689= you might get:
(a) In m> we woulu just apply oui @8F5=463 C1_
(b) In m, we woulu apply oui 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 (iesults in b*#.%*1 k$';"%)
(c) In m, we woulu use F)&01)+ C%"3(1 - so we woulu apply "2# choice of law iule, but we woulu look at +"2#
choice of law iule (%! "2# 5-"%5$ "! #21$ :"%'.8 .-$#$) anu we woulu take a iemission oi a tiansmission
(u) In m, we use 5(0)+ C%"3(1 - so oui choice of law iule is: we woulu uo whatevei the foieign couit woulu uo
(iesults in 5%#52128 %'$A.#%5*7%1%8)
9(*% %;10(&1)+ :(**%"0'E .-%8 85$'*#%" O<P -*8 '$;$# -*::$'$<> *'< %. &%;$8 '%&-.4*#$8 ." .-$ .-$"#%8.8F c-$
5"44"' 1*, H2<&$8 -*;$ '$;$# -*< ." !"#421*.$ * 8$5"'<*#+ #21$ !"# ,-*. ,"21< -*::$' %! .-$ !"#$%&' 5"2#.
,"21< -*::$' ." 28$ * c".*1 k$';"% .""> 7$5*28$ "'1+ .-$ 5"44"' 1*, 5"2#.8 *#$ 8.2:%< $'"2&- ." %'8%8. "'
6c".*1 k$';"%9 *'< .-$ 5"44"' 1*, H2#%8<%5.%"'8 282*11+ -*;$ .-$ 8*4$ 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$ R *'< 7$5*28$ .-$+
282*11+ -*;$ .-$ 8*4$ 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$> +"2 <"'C. &$. *'+ ":.%"'8F B"2 '$$< L 5"44"' 1*, 8+8.$48 ." &" -$*<
." -$*< ." &$. .-%8 85$'*#%"F /2. 5%;%1 1*, 8+8.$48 *#$ 84*#. $'"2&- ." "'1+ 28$ b*#.%*1 k$';"% %! .-$+ 28$ k$';"%
*. *11> *'< %' H2#%8<%5.%"'8 .-*. 28$ b*#.%*1 k$';"%> .-$#$ ,%11 282*11+ "'1+ 7$ "'$ #$4%88%"' "# .#*'84%88%"' *'<
.-*. ,%11 282*11+ $'< %.F
I"( Y' /0> 28%'& c".*1 k$';"%> ,$ ,"21< 28$ (/& 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$> ,-%5- :"%'.8 ." H2#%8<%5.%"' mF N$ ,"21< .-$'
8*+ ." m( 6,$ ,"21< <" ,-*.$;$# +"2 ,"21< <"F9 m ,"21< 5"4$ ." .-$ 8*4$ #$821. 7$5*28$ .-$+ ,"21< 28$ 0<%1&
5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$ *'< .-*. ,"21< :#"7*71+ :"%'. .-$4 ." .-$%# ",' 1*, O7$5*28$ .-*.C8 -", ,$ &". .-$#$ %' .-$
V%#8. :1*5$PF
311 .-$ 5"44"' 1*, 5"2#.8 8*+( %! ,$ 28$ k$';"% *. *11> ,$ 28$ c".*1 k$';"% 72. %' !*5.> .-$ #$821.8 %' .-$ M'&1%8-
5*8$8 *#$ 5"'8%8.$'. ,%.- b*#.%*1 k$';"% R .-$#$ %8 * 1""E *. .-$ 5"'V1%5.8 #21$ *'< .-$#$ %8 * .#*'84%88%"' "# *
#$4%88%"'F S", <" .-$+ &$. !#"4 c".*1 k$';"% ." b*#.%*1 k$';"%Q Y. <$:$'<8 "' .-$ !"#$%&' $A:$#. *'< .-$
U2$8.%"'8 +"2 *8E .-$ !"#$%&' $A:$#.F
U8_ @85= $841C %59>86 01JJ59 1336@5941CCDd It can happen acciuentally if you want b*#.%*1 k$';"% but
insteau of asking the foieign expeit "What is youi conflicts choice of law iule foi this issue." (which gets you
the conflicts choice of law iule, anu then a tiansmissioniemission), you ask the foieign expeit "Bow woulu
+"2# couit solve this case." 0nce you ask the foieign expeit this question, you'ie in ueep shit - you have left
youiself wiue open foi any possible iesult.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S6
In ceitain scenaiios ($AF !"#4*1 ;*1%<%.+ "! * 4*##%*&$), the couits will use Paitial Renvoi as an 1C4529146>5
>1C6@1469Q 2;C5 if they uon't get the uesiieu iesult with the application of the uomestic law of the 1$A 5*28*$
(this is now built into the common law choice of law iule) (5)'U)"(,'U) 3 5)'U)"(,'U1 GTYR ?28<145
(])-, M'&1%8- 5"2#. 1""E$< *. Y.*1%*' <"4$8.%5 1*,> &". .-$ ,#"'& #$821.> 4*##%*&$ ,*8 %';*1%<F M'&1%8- 5"2#.
.-$' 1""E$< *. Y.*1%*' 5"'V1%5.8 1*,> .2#'$< "2. .-$#$ ,*8 '". 5"4:1%*'5$ ,%.- .-$ 5"'V1%5.8 1*, $%.-$#).
%59>86 69 F12261Q5: Choice of law iule goveining foimal valiuity of a maiiiage is now a @8;<C5 <1225C 2;C5:
"foimal valiuity of a maiiiage (.-$ %882$) is goveineu by EITBER (a) the @8F5=463 C1_ of the place wheie the
maiiiage was celebiateu (.-$ 5"''$5.%'& !*5."#) 0R (%' .-$ *1.$#'*.%;$) (b) the 389iC634= 2;C5 of the place
wheie the maiiiage was celebiateu."
%59>86 ;=5@ 69 4824: @%1+'(" 3 S3%&'%)' F&(A%:0' OaaY U)- k-;=l: V%#8.X"'1+ 5*8$ %' ,-%5- k$';"% -*8 7$$'
28$< %' * ."#.8 5*8$F S03 8*+8 %. %8 &"%'& ." 28$ c".*1 k$';"%> 72. .-$+ ,%'< 2: 28%'& b*#.%*1 k$';"%( ,$ <"'C.
71%'<1+ *::1+ "2# 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$ *'< "'1+ $;$# *::1+ .-$ <"4$8.%5 1*, "! .-$ 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.% R ,$ 5*' 1""E *.
.-$ 5"'V1%5.8 #21$ "! .-$ 1$A 1"5% <$1$.5%, .-$+ 1""E *. .-$ 5-%'$8$ 5"'V1%5.8 #21$> .-$+ .*E$ * #$4%88%"' *'< .-$+
*::1+ 328.#*1%*' <"4$8.%5 1*,.
@".$( usually we use eithei the olu "uouble baiiel iule" oi the new "lex loci uelecti" iule since 199S (5(+(6'("
)"; 7%"'%") anu then we apply the uomestic law of the juiisuiction that is selecteu.
$05 V1D V5 '8 "4 69 ^):
In BC, if you have a case with an issue calling foi an application of a choice of law iule, anu the choice of law
iule points you to anothei juiisuiction (1$A 5*28*8$):
(1) Fiist, ieseaich the @8F5=463 C1_ of that foieign juiisuiction.
(2) If the application of the uomestic law of the foieign juiisuiction will not iesult in a favouiable outcome foi
youi client, theie is nothing to pievent you anu in fact you shoulu ieseaich the 389iC634= 2;C5= of the
foieign juiisuiction so you know what youi options aie.
If youi cause of actionjuiiuical categoiy is the kinu of categoiy that is amenable to the use of k$';"%
(maiiiage, succession, title to immovable piopeity, maybe toits, '". contiacts), you'ie home-fiee.
(S) You then have the option of aiguing that the BC couit shoulu look at the 389iC634= 2;C5= of the foieign
juiisuiction (note: you woulu only uo this if you have uiscoveieu that, by iemission oi tiansmission, this
woulu get a moie favouiable iesult foi youi client).
Bo not even 4$'.%"' Total Renvoi! }us say: "Renvoiconflicts iuletiansmission: apply uomestic law, isn't
that easy, juuge." oi "Remission: hey you get to apply youi own law, isn't that even easiei."
(4) Then you get a foieign expeit anu ask them to set out the conflicts choice of law iule anu how it opeiates
in theii legal system. Bo N0T ask the foieign expeit: "what woulu +"2# 5"2#. uo in this case."
(S) Counsel on othei siue is fiee to then aigue: "Bey if we use Renvoi, we only use Total Renvoi." Bow uo you
hanule this. You piay.
3 '".$ "! 5*2.%"'( Renvoi is not an appioach that juuges in Canaua (oi even in Englanu) paiticulaily like. So
you'ie not going to get a paiticulaily ieceptive juuicial auuience but they acknowleuge pieceuents so if theie
is a pieceuent in the aiea, they will uefei to that. @"# %8 Renvoi encouiageu by legislation; theie aie a numbei
of statutes which expiessly excluue Renvoi. The BC ]1++'8 G'0)0%' )"; 9/::%''1(" 4:0 (enacteu, but not yet
pioclaimeu) pioviues multiple inuepenuent alteinatives that can be useu to finu the paiticulai will valiu. 0nce
you have these alteinatives in the legislation, you uon't neeu Renvoi anymoie.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S7
At common law, Renvoi is an option in k1l >1C6@64D 8S F12261Q5 cases anu k<l 45=41F59412D =;335==689
(foimal anu essential valiuity of wills). In these two aieas, theie is a common policy, pietty much acioss the
common law woilu, of wanting to upholu the uocumentinstitution - so you'ie looking foi options.
Anothei aiea in which theie is pieceuent foi use of Renvoi (assuming we take juiisuiction) is k3l 4219=S52= 8S
464C5 48 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D! When we use Renvoi in this aiea, we aie uefeiiing to powei. You can't move
immovable piopeity, so we might as well uo what the foieign couit woulu uo because they aie in contiol.
Anothei aiea is k@l 4824= (@%1+'(" 3 S3%&'%)' F&(A%:0'). The policy in this aiea might be saiu to be to finu
liability foi the plaintiff (we uon't know if this the piopei policy, we'ie not suie what was motivating the BCA).
@".$( you cannot use Renvoi in 38942134= because the intiouuction of Renvoi into the choice of law iule
piouuces unceitainty anu when you choose a law to govein youi contiact, you want that uomestic law, you
uon't want to get into choice of law iules anu whatevei that legal system might choose in its conflicts system.
@".$( The English CA has iecently iejecteu using k$';"% foi tiansfei of titles to F8>1<C5 J28J524D (.).
"#)"',#$-. X(,/$"&#
All you have to be able to uo is #$5"&'%G$ an inciuental question if it shoulu aiise in a case you uo (but uo not
assume you will have one on the exam).
The 42;5 6936@5941C h;5=4689 is limiteu to situations in which (a) 405 =;<=6@612D 6==;5 6= 1 389iC634= 6==;5
69 64= 8_9 26Q04 (it's got to be solveu by the application of a choice of law iule, otheiwise we woulu just use
"2# choice of law iule) -#' (b) 405 1JJC6314689 8S 405 S82;F 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 _6CC J28@;35 1 @6SS52594
25=;C4 fiom the application of the 1$A 5*28*$ choice of law iule - only then uo you have to ueal with the choice.
W+)''1: %H)*$+% (6 )" 1":1;%"0)+ P/%'01("E Theie is a will - the essential valiuity of the will is ueteimineu by
the law of juiisuiction 3 (%&'"#%'& 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$8 !"# '",> :#"7*71+ 7$5*28$ %. %8 .-$ .$8.*."#C8 <"4%5%1$).
The testatoi c leaves eveiything to his wife 3, but uoes not name the peison. Question is iaiseu by someone
(who is not the wife, but wants the estate, let's say, the sistei X). The question is: Is 3 the wife of the testatoi.
Assume that this subsiuiaiy issue is a conflicts issue in its own iight (because the paities got maiiieu in
anothei juiisuiction, etc). I169 6==;5: essential valiuity of the will. /;<=6@612D 6==;5: is A the wife of the
testatoi. (assume this is a conflicts issue).
5<% 1":1;%"0)+ P/%'01("E The 1$A 5*28*$ foi the main question (valiuity of the will) has a choice of law iule
that says: Yes 3 is the wife of T. The 1$A !"#% has a uiffeient choice of law iule, anu it says: No 3 is not the wife
of T. $06= 6= 405 6936@5941C h;5=4689: whose choice of law iule shoulu BC couits use foi this subsiuiaiy issue.
The choice of law iule of the foium oi the choice of law iule of the 1$A 5*28*$ - they give a @6SS52594 25=;C4.
9( -(/ <)3% ) :<(1:%f Theie aie no pieceuents foicing the couit in one way (foium law) oi the othei way (lex
causae). You'ie going to have to finu aiguments to justifypeisuaue the BC couit (oi whatevei juiisuiction
you'ie in) to use foium law oi 1$A 5*28*$. You can aigue unifoimity: let's uo what the foieign couit woulu uo
because we've ueciueu they'ie the iight legal system foi the issue. You can aigue inteinal consistency: foium
chaiacteiization, let's use oui own laws all the time.
@".$( 895 _1D 48 1>86@ 405 _08C5 6936@5941C h;5=4689 unceitainty is to biing the subsiuiaiy issue to the
couit by itself anu ask foi a ueclaiation about the valiuity of the subsiuiaiy issue alone (ex. the Italian uivoice)
because the couit -*8 to use its ",' conflicts iules.
9:<,%B%+ 3 T"2)& GTAY /))g 4*%' %882$ O5*:*5%.+ ." 4*##+P .2#'$< "' ,-$.-$# .-$ &$.. <%;"#5$ %' Y.*1+ ,*8
#$5"&'%G$< O8278%<%*#+ %882$PF @".$( 8278%<%*#+ %882$ ,*8 * 5"'V1%5.8 O#$5"&'%.%"'P %882$ '". * 5-"%5$ "! 1*, %882$F
Y8#*$1C8 #$5"&'%.%"' #21$ !"# !"#$%&' <%;"#5$8( 6,$ #$5"&'%G$ * &$.. <%;"#5$>9 T <); '1"2+% '0)0/'> 8-$ -*<
5*:*5%.+ ." 4*##+F 0*'*<*C8 #$5"&'%.%"' #21$ !"# !"#$%&' <%;"#5$8( OKP <%;"#5$8 "7.*%'$< "# OLP #$5"&'%G$< 7+
<"4%5%1$ OS2'&*#+P( 6S2'&*#+ <"$8 '". #$5"&'%G$ .-$ <%;"#5$>9 T ;1; "(0 <)3% '1"2+% '0)0/'> 8-$ <%< '". -*;$
5*:*5%.+ ." 4*##+F I00 <$5%<$< ." *::1+ 1$A 5*28*$ #21$F S", <%< .-$+ 5-""8$Q N$ <"'C. E'",).
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S8
I-%%"-+,
0iiginally, the common law couits hau a single choice of law iule foi maiiiage valiuity: the valiuity of a
maiiiage is ueteimineu by the law of the place wheie the maiiiage was celebiateu (1$A 1"5% 5$1$7#*.%"'28). The
pioblem was that this leu to "foium" shopping foi maiiiages (people coulu seaich foi a place to get maiiieu
wheie the legal system won't say no (just like the Ameiicans coming up to Canaua to get maiiieu).
Now we have a <6S;2314689 8S >1C6@64D 8S F12261Q5 6948 =;<N3145Q8265= (>&((U 3 >&((U GETG U.):
(1) M82F1C >1C6@64D of a maiiiage is still goveineu by the law of the place of celebiation of maiiiage (1$A 1"5%
5$1$7#*.%"'28) (>&((U): EITBER @8F5=463 C1_ 0R (%' .-$ *1.$#'*.%;$) 389iC634= 2;C5 (5)'U)"(,'U)).
Paitial Renvoi is now built into the common law choice of law iule: the couits will use Paitial Renvoi as an
1C4529146>5 >1C6@1469Q 2;C5 if they uon't get the uesiieu iesult with the application of the uomestic law of
the 1$A 5*28*$ (5)'U)"(,'U) 3 5)'U)"(,'U1 GTYR ?28<145 (])-, M'&1%8- 5"2#. 1""E$< *. Y.*1%*'
<"4$8.%5 1*,> &". .-$ ,#"'& #$821.> 4*##%*&$ ,*8 %';*1%<F M'&1%8- 5"2#. .-$' 1""E$< *. Y.*1%*' 5"'V1%5.8 1*,>
.2#'$< "2. .-$#$ ,*8 '". 5"4:1%*'5$ ,%.- .-$ 5"'V1%5.8 1*, $%.-$#).
The object of these choice of law iules, geneially, is to achieve unifoimity - anu the one thing you want in
maiiiage is unifoim status. So k$';"% has a toe-holu in maiiiage choice of law iules because we'ie aiming
foi unifoimity. "We'll uo what the law of the place of celebiation woulu uo" because we want unifoimity.
(2) ,==59461C >1C6@64D (capacity to maiiy) is goveineu by, geneially speaking, EITBER ('". *1.$#'*.%;$8)
(a) 405 @;1C @8F636C5 2;C5: (each paity's anti-nuptial uomicile) - 4*%' 5"'.$'<$# 0R
=%8*<;*'.*&$( +"2 -*;$ ." 8*.%8!+ .," 1$&*1 8+8.$48F
(b) 405 C1_ 8S 405 69459@5@ F1426F8961C 08F5: post-nuptial (,-$' %.C8 5"';$'%$'.H28.$.5)
=%8*<;*'.*&$( ,-*. %! +"2 '$;$# #$*5- +"2# 4*.#%4"'%*1 -"4$Q (@)&,)+ GTTa M)-).
(S) These aie '". alteinatives. But you have a 5-"%5$. Theie is no Canauian pieceuent that says we apply only
one oi the othei. 0sually both aie uiscusseu anu one is selecteu. If you can peisuaue the couit that the
intenueu matiimonial home test makes the most sense in the ciicumstances of youi case, theie is
pieceuent foi it (@)&,)+). If you can peisuaue the couit that the uual uomicile iule, which is the
pieuominant one selecteu, makes the most sense in the ciicumstances of youi case, theie is pieceuent foi
that too (9)"2<) 3 M)";%&).
?2535@594= S82 ?28J52 )012134526714689 8S '5S534=:
Befects that have been chaiacteiizeu by the common law as going to the S82F1C >1C6@64D of a maiiiage:
(a) Bansnotices issue (.)
(b) Witnesses: Bo theie have to be witnesses. Bow many witnesses.
(c) Registiation: Boes the maiiiage have to be iegisteieu. Is it valiu if it is not.
(u) Is a civil maiiiage ceiemony sufficient. Nust theie be a civil ceiemony. Nust theie be a ieligious
ceiemony. Nust theie be both.
(e) What about pioxy maiiiages.
(f) What about paiental consent. Paiental consent was classifieu by common law as a uefect going to
foimal valiuity (in Englanu), on the continent it was consiueieu as going to essential valiuity.
(g) 0nline maiiiages. Can you Skype. Can you email it. - hasn't come up yet but stay tuneu.
Befects that have been chaiacteiizeu by the common law as going to the 5==59461C >1C6@64D of a maiiiage:
(a) Age: Is theie a minimum age below which a paity has no capacity to maiiy.
(b) Consanguinity: Can you maiiy youi fiist cousin. Etc.
(c) Affinity: Relationship thiough maiiiage (>&((U 3 >&((U)
(u) Single status: Boes this peison have capacity to maiiy oi is he alieauy maiiieu (9:<,%B%+ 3 T"2)&).
(e) Consent: Paities must consent to maiiiage. Was theie fiauu. Was one of the paities tiickeu into a
ceiemony of maiiiage thinking it was something else. Was theie uuiess.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S9
(f) Was theie mistake. A mistake as to the attiibutes of the othei peison. (k$5$'. 0-%'$8$ 5*8$)
(g) Nistake as to the natuie of the ceiemony: you thought you weie going thiough a betiothal ceiemony
but you finu out you weie actually maiiieu
(h) Consent vitiateu by mental illness
(i) Consent vitiateu by mental ieseivations: I hau my fingeis ciosseu behinu my back (common law anu
civil law have uiffeient views on this: common law says, you saiu I uo, you'ie uone)
(j) Same-sex maiiiages
Bepenuing on 08_ D8; 301213452675 405 6==;5, the uefect may go to foimal valiuity oi essential valiuity. Foi
example, what is the effect of the law on a ieligious ceiemony. (./;'(" 3 K%12< OaaT (]U), S0
5-*#*5.$#%G$< #$1%&%"28 5$#$4"'+ %' I3 *8 &"%'& ." !"#4*1 ;*1%<%.+> :*#.%$8 <%<'C. 5"'8$'. 72. *18"> 4%'%8.$# E'$,
:*#.%$8 ,$#$'C. %'.$'<%'& ." &$. 4*##%$< .-*. <*+> 4*##%*&$ '". ;*1%<).
If you want to aigue that the maiiiage is S82F1CCD 69>1C6@ (so that 1$A 1"5% 5$1$7#*.%"'28 woulu apply), you
have to aigue that this paiticulai ceiemony is not iecognizeu as a valiu ceiemony of maiiiage (by the 1$A 1"5%
5$1$7#*.%"'28).
If you want to aigue that the maiiiage is 5==59461CCD 69>1C6@ (so that uual uomicile oi law of the matiimonial
home woulu apply), you want to aigue theie was no consent (Y E'$, Y ,*8'C. 7$%'& :#":$#1+ 4*##%$<> Y E'$,
.-%8 ,*8'C. #$*11+ * 5$#$4"'+ "! 4*##%*&$> %. ,*8 H28. * 71$88%'&> * #$1%&%"28 5$#$4"'+ 71$88%'& ,-*. %8 ." 5"4$).
?8CDQ1F8;= I12261Q5=
(1) The foium will ueciue _054052 1 F12261Q5 6= J8CDQ1F8;= (chaiacteiization question) by examining the
inciuence of the ceiemony anu the law wheie the ceiemony took place. MA( .-$ 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$ %' M'&1*'<
$A*4%'$8 .-$ 1$&*1 8+8.$4 ,-$#$ .-$ 5$#$4"'+ "552##$< ." 8$$ ,-*. %'5%<$'5$ %8 *..*5-$< ." .-$ 4*##%*&$ *'<
.-$' <$5%<$8 !"# %.8$1! O1$A !"#%P ,-$.-$# .-*. %8 * :"1+&*4"28 4*##%*&$F
If you aie polygamously maiiieu, we iecognize that as a valiu maiiiage, but that will pievent you having a
capacity to entei into anothei maiiiage.
(2) Not capacity :$# 8$ but 31J1364D 48 59452 6948 1 J8CDQ1F8;= F12261Q5 is goveineu by the C1_ 8S 405
69459@5@ F1426F8961C 08F5 - no option, no unceitainty. a28.%V%5*.%"' !"# .-%8( only the legal system wheie
the paities make theii home shoulu ueciue whethei the paities can entei into a polygamous maiiiage
(G"2+1'< 9$1"'0%& )"; G2-$01)" M)" W)'%, :$":1$ <"4%5%1$< %' * 4"'"&*4"28 H2#%8<%5.%"' 5*'C. $'.$# %'." *
:"1+&*4"28 4*##%*&$, 8" %! +"2 *::1+ <2*1 <"4%5%1$ #21$( 8-$ <%<'C. -*;$ 5*:*5%.+ *'< Lg +$*#8 "! 4*##%$< 1%!$
,%.- 5-%1<#$' ,$'. <",' .-$ <#*%').
(S) )89=5h;5935= 8S 1 J8CDQ1F8;= F12261Q5: The common law iule (unless oveituineu by statute, which
BC has not uone): theie is 98 F1426F8961C 25C65S foi paities to a valiu polygamous maiiiage (.-;% 3 .-;%
GEAA (]g ,$ <"'C. E'", ,-*. 4*.#%4"'%*1 #$1%$! ,$ 8-"21< &%;$ ." :"1+&*4"28 4*##%*&$8> %F$F ,%!$ jL>f>n> $.5F).
(4) It is possible to 389>524 1 J8CDQ1F8;= ;9689 6948 1 F898Q1F8;= ;9689 by the acquisition of a uomicile
in a monogamous state. If you have only one spouse at the moment when you acquiie a uomicile in a legal
system that peimits only monogamy, youi maiiiage 5*' be consiueieu to be conveiteu to a monogamous
maiiiage, anu then you can get matiimonial ielief foi anything that happens post-conveision.
Piesumably, if you acquiie uomicile in a juiisuiction that allows polygamous maiiiages, youi monogamous
maiiiage can be conveiteu into a polygamous maiiiage anu you can take anothei wife.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
4u
$&%$/
$U, &%'"#-%` %(.,
The 82@6912D 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 (in Canaua, likely incluuing Quebec) is +%H +(:1 ;%+%:01: the law of the place
wheie the toit occuiieu (5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%" GTTL /))). Bowevei, this is not absolute. Because a iigiu iule
coulu give iise to injustice (in ceitain ciicumstances), theie 4*+ be potential foi exceptions (at the uiscietion
of the couit) but they woulu neeu to be veiy caiefully uefineu (La Foiest } in 5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%").
MM 82&&$8.8( If a toit occuis 69 )191@1, it is likely that the 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.% iule woulu apply. If a toit occuis
8;4=6@5 )191@1, then theie is an alteinative iule to apply the law of the foium (7$5*28$ %. ,"21< 4*E$ 4"#$
8$'8$X7$ 4"#$ H28.X*::#":#%*.$ ." *::1+ .-$ 1*, "! 8"4$ .-%#< 5"2'.#+) but we not necessaiily lockeu in to this.
U51@= 8S @1F1Q5= aie substantive. X;1946i6314689 8S @1F1Q5=, howevei, is pioceuuial (so foium law
applies). )8=4= aie pioceuuial. ?25NZ;@QF594 694525=4 is substantive (goveineu by 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.%) (9(*%&' 3
^(/&"1%& Oaaa &#)-, *#&24$'. !"# %'.$#'*.%"'*1 $A5$:.%"' ." 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.% #21$ !*%1$<F 0"2#. -$1<( <%!!$#$'.
8.*.$8> 72. '" #$*8"' ." *::1+ W@ 1*,F @".$( /0 ,"21< 1%E$1+ 5-*#*5.$#%G$ .-$8$ %882$8 .-$ 8*4$ ,*+).
,[),?$"&#/ $& $U, &%'"#-%` %(.,
If you uon't like +%H +(:1 ;%+%:01g
(1) It may be possible to cieate special choice of law iules foi J12463;C12 4824= <1=5@ 89 69052594
3012134526=463=. MA*4:1$: LeBel } 82&&$8.8 that the choice of law iule goveining @5S1F14689 134689= shoulu
be 405 C1_ 8S 405 JC135 8S 405 F8=4 =;<=419461C 012F 48 405 25J;414689 8S 405 JC16946SS (>)"&( OaGO /)),
%. %8 1%E$1+ .-*. .-%8 1*, .-*. ,%11 7$ *::1%$< 7+ 1",$# 5"2#.8 7$5*28$ ,$ :*+ 51"8$ *..$'.%"' ." .-$ I00Z .-$
:#"71$4 ,%11 7$ ." <$5%<$ ,-*. 1$&*1 8+8.$4 %8 %<$'.%V%$< 7+ .-*. 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$).
(2) If the toit occuiieu outsiue of Canaua, it may be possible to apply an alteinative choice of law iule using
the "694529146891CNC5>5C" toit exception (7$5*28$ %. ,"21< 4*E$ 4"#$ 8$'8$X7$ 4"#$ H28.X*::#":#%*.$ ." *::1+
.-$ 1*, "! 8"4$ .-%#< 5"2'.#+) (5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%"). It is not cleai what is meant by an "inteinational level" but
it has to be cleaily outsiue Canaua. You will likely neeu veiy specific facts to peisuaue the couits. At the veiy
least, the toit must have occuiieu elsewheie anu the plaintiff anu uefenuant must be of the same nationality.
0ne alteinative is to apply the law of the foium, but you coulu also use the law of some othei countiy.
(S) It may be possible to JC1D _640 405 C8314689 8S 405 4824 foi choice of law puiposes. @".$( a toit may be
locateu in many places foi puiposes of juiisuiction.
(4) It may be possible to JC1D _640 405 3012134526714689 8S 405 4824 (substance vs pioceuuie): toit vs
contiact, natuie of contiact, etc.
(S) It may be possible to use C%"3(1: look to the foieign juiisuiction's 5-"%5$ "! 1*, iule (insteau of the
<"4$8.%5 1*,) anu get the law shifteu elsewheie (tiansmission) oi back to the foium (iemission) (@%1+'(" 3
S3%&'%)' F&(A%:0' OaaY U)- k-;=l: V%#8.X"'1+ 5*8$ %' ,-%5- k$';"% -*8 7$$' 28$< %' * ."#.8 5*8$F S03 8*+8 %. %8
&"%'& ." 28$ c".*1 k$';"%> 72. .-$+ ,%'< 2: 28%'& b*#.%*1 k$';"%( ,$ <"'C. 71%'<1+ *::1+ "2# 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$
*'< "'1+ $;$# *::1+ .-$ <"4$8.%5 1*, "! .-$ 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.% R ,$ 5*' 1""E *. .-$ 5"'V1%5.8 #21$ "! .-$ 1$A 1"5%
<$1$.5%. c-$+ 1""E *. .-$ 0-%'$8$ 5"'V1%5.8 #21$> .-$+ .*E$ * #$4%88%"' *'< .-$+ *::1+ 328.#*1%*' <"4$8.%5 1*,).
(6) You can also aigue the "J;<C63 J8C63D 5B3C;=68912D 2;C5" (?1:%- C/+% D, M'&1%8-XO0*'*<%*'P 5"2#.8 ,%11
'". $'!"#5$ "# #$5"&'%G$ .-$ 1*, "! * !"#$%&' H2#%8<%5.%"' %! %. ,"21< 7$ %'5"'8%8.$'. ,%.- .-$ !2'<*4$'.*1 :271%5
:"1%5+ "! M'&1%8-XO0*'*<%*'P 1*,). This is a 91228_CD @5i695@ 5B3C;=68912D 2;C5 _640 1 =42634 45=4: it must
be a foieign law (oi foieign juugment) which tuins the stomach of the juuges in the couit, i.e. they finu the
foieign law 8" #$:218%;$, that they cannot beai to apply it (K+(-;L' 3 M%1"=%&).
(5"'.C<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
41
(7) If the plaintiff anu uefenuant have a contiactual ielationship, you can, as contiacting paities, 693C;@5 1
308635 8S C1_ J28>6=689 to covei any toit actions aiising out of the peifoimance of the contiact. D"# $A*4:1$,
4%8#$:#$8$'.*.%"' may be coveieu by choice of law clause. This will uepenu on the uiafting of the contiact.
(8) You can also S82;F =08J (72. <"'C. 8*+ +"2C#$ <"%'& %.). If anothei juiisuiction has a uiffeient choice of law
iule which woulu be moie beneficial to you oi youi client, theie is nothing unethical in exploiing that option.
I696NU6=482D .5==89:
0iiginal English iule that was in foice in Canaua until 1994 was the "@8;<C5N<1225C 2;C5e: the toit hau to be
(a) actionable in the foium ANB (b) not justifiable in the place wheie the toit occuiieu (7*8%5*11+ 1$A !"#%
827H$5. ." .-$ <$!$'<*'. :$#82*<%'& .-$ 5"2#. .-*. .-$ *5. 5"4:1*%'$< "! %' .-$ :1*5$ ,-$#$ .-$ ."#. "552##$<
,*8 .".*11+ %''"5$'. O8"4$ $!!"#.8 ." 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.%P)

In the 0S, they useu the 1$A 1"5% <$1%5.% iule but it was thiown out by a "ievolution" anu ieplaceu with a
&";$#'4$'.*1 %'.$#$8. *::#"*5- (which state has the gieatest inteiest in having its law applieu to ueciue the
action. 0sually, couits finu theii own states).
Englanu moveu to a iule of c@8;<C5 1346891<6C64De: the toit hau to civilly actionable in the foium ANB in the
place wheie the toit occuiieu (%F$F 5"%'5%<$'5$ "! 1$&*1 #%&-.8> %F$F .-$ ,"#8. "! 7".- ,"#1<8).
)&#$%-)$/
This is the one aiea of conflicts wheie we uo oui best to uefei to autonomy of the paities to a contiact to
ueciue what law will govein theii contiactual ielations. Bowevei, this is not absolute. The J26F12D 308635 8S
C1_ 2;C5 in contiacts is that the law to govein any contiact action is 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134. The
piopei law of the contiact is always saiu to be the 6945291C C1_ 8S 405 Z;26=@634689 =5C5345@ 1= 405 J28J52
C1_ 8S 405 38942134. Theie is N0 Renvoi in contiacts because k$';"% piouuces unceitainty anu we want to
have oiuei anu ceitainty in contiacts.
At common law, 1 38942134 319984 5B6=4 69 1 C5Q1C >13;;F. Theie -*8 to be a piopei law foi the contiact
fiom the inception of the contiact (4*1" C)'<%%;). Also, the J28J52 C1_ 8S 1 38942134 319984 ciC814e (8" +"2
5*'C. 8*+ 6%! Y 82$ +"2> +"2 5*' 5-""8$ .-$ :#":$# 1*,> %! +"2 82$ 4$> YC11 5-""8$ .-$ :#":$# 1*,"). Also, the J28J52
C1_ 8S 1 38942134 319984 c=06S4e (%. 5*'C. 7$ .-%8 1*, !"# .-$ V%#8. Kg +$*#8 *'< *'".-$# 1*, .-$ '$A. Kg +$*#8).
Bowevei the paities 5*' make a new contiact anu change the laws goveining theii contiactual ielations. The
paities can also, in theoiy, choose uiffeient laws to govein uiffeient :*#.8 of the contiact.
The piopei law of the contiact will govein most issues that might aiise in a contiacts case. Bowevei, some
6==;5= 125 "(0 Q8>5295@ <D 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134: (a) )1J1364D to contiact (b) M82F1C6465= of the
contiact (c) M82F14689 of the contiact (u) "CC5Q1C64D. Also consiuei chaiacteiization of =;<=41935 >=
J2835@;25. I" +"2 428. V%#8. :<)&):0%&1=% .-$ #$1$;*'. %882$8 %' .-$ 5*8$F Y8 .-$#$ 8"4$ ".-$# #$1$;*'.
5"'.#*5.2*1 %882$ ,-%5- 4%&-. 7$ &";$#'$< 7+ * <%!!$#$'. 1$&*1 8+8.$4 *'< * <%!!$#$'. 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$Q
/#$*5- "! 5"'.#*5.Q R :#":$# 1*,F o2$8.%"' "! !"#4*.%"' O%F$F 6%8 .-$#$ * 5"'.#*5. -$#$ *. *119PQ R !"#24 1*,F
@".$( when theie is a choice of piopei law to govein contiactual ielations, the law selecteu will be the law as
it existeu 14 405 46F5 8S 3894213469Q wheieas the law applieu by the foium will be the law as it exists 14 405
46F5 8S 405 C646Q14689.
Connecting factois in a contiacts action:
(a) 405 S82;F (in this case NS - a uisinteiesteu thiiu juiisuiction)
(b) 405 +%H +(:1 :("0&):0/' k..)l - the law of the place wheie the contiact was maue
(c) 405 +%H +(:1 '(+/01("1' k../l - the law of the place wheie the contiact is to be peifoimeu
(u) 405 J28J52 C1_
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
42
$U, ?%&?,% .-V
The J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 may be:
(1) /;<Z5346>5: (baseu on paities' actual intention) $%.-$# 5BJ25==CD baseu on an 5BJ25== 308635 8S C1_
J28>6=689 in the contiact (\10) ^((;') "# <D 6FJC6314689 (theie might be an 6FJC65@ 308635 8S C1_)
(C1:<)&;'(" !"0%&")01(")+) 0R
(2) &<Z5346>5: if you can't finu an expiess oi implieu intention, the couit can ueteimine the 8<Z5346>5CD
1=35241695@ J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 (!*$%&1)+ K16% 4''/&)":%, &%;$8 !"#421*.%"').
kGl ,BJ25== 308635 8S C1_ J28>6=689
I" +"2 8.*#. ,%.-( 6,-*. <%< .-$ :*#.%$8 %'.$'<Q9 S&;1")&1+-, an 5BJ25== 308635 8S C1_ J28>6=689 will
ueteimine the piopei law of the contiact. It is given >52D Q2514 _56Q04 but it is not consiueieu to be 1<=8C;45
at common law (\10) ^((;' GTPT (]?), %' 5$#.*%' 5%#5248.*'5$8> 5"2#. 4%&-. '". <$!$# ." :*#.+ *2."'"4+).
S",$;$#> .-$ '247$# "! 5*8$8 %' ,-%5- *' $A:#$88 5-"%5$ "! 1*, 51*28$ -*8 '". 7$$' <$!$##$< ." *#$ !$, *'< !*#
%' 7$.,$$'Z .-$ ,-"1$ :"%'. %8 .-*. +"2 *#$ .#+%'& ." *;"%< *::1%5*.%"' "! 8"4$ 1*, .-*. ,"21< ".-$#,%8$ *::1+.
Theie neeu be 98 3899534689 <54_559 405 38942134 19@ 405 C1_ =5C5345@ to govein the contiactual
ielations of the paities to the contiact. The piinciple of paity autonomy (as applieu by the common law)
allows paities to a contiact to choose a completely uninvolveu thiiu legal system (\10) ^((;').
kOl "FJC65@ 308635 8S C1_
In theoiy, the paities may have selecteu the law goveining theii contiact by 6FJC6314689 but this is haiu to
show. You 319984 41f5 5>6@5935 =;<=5h;594CD as to what the paities actual intent was. You uo it on the
basis of _014 6= _264459 69 405 38942134 (6,%.-%' %' .-$ !"2# 5"#'$#8 "! .-$ 5"'.#*5.9). You uo '". look outsiue
(C1:<)&;'(" !"0%&")01(")+ OaaO M)-).
M13482= 48 389=6@52 ('". $A-*28.%;$): (1) the C19Q;1Q5 in which the contiact is wiitten (2) the 452F= ;=5@
(common law vs civil law teims) (S) the 3;22593D foi payment (4) >1C6@64D 8S 3C1;=5= in the contiact (,$
*8824$ :*#.%$8 %'.$'<$< ." '$&".%*.$ * ;*1%< 5"'.#*5. 8" %! .$#48 *#$'C. ;*1%< 2'<$# "'$ "! .-$ :"88%71$ 1$&*1
8+8.$48> %. %8 * 8.#"'& %'<%5*.%"' .-$ :*#.%$8 %'.$'<$< .-$ 5"'.#*5. ." 7$ &";$#'$< 7+ .-$ 1*, "! .-$ ".-$# 1$&*1
8+8.$4> 2'<$# ,-%5- .-$ .$#48 ,"21< 7$ ;*1%<) (S) existence of 12<64214689 3C1;=5= (in paiticulai wheie theie
is a geogiaphical location selecteu foi the aibitiation) anu Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q 3C1;=5=.
The couit will use an 12<64214689 3C1;=5 1= 1 $(1"0%& to the paities' actual intention. It is a veiy weighty
factoi (C1:<)&;'(" !"0%&")01(")+> 5"2#. 1""E8 *. 5"'.#*5. %.8$1! %'51 *#7%.#*.%"' 51*28$> V%'<8 %4:1%$< %'.$'.%"').
0thei couits have also lookeu at 405 C1_ 8S 405 iC1Q (this can be pioblematic if theie aie uiffeient ships with
flags of uiffeient nationalities)(5*8$ 4$'.%"'$< %' 4*1" C)'<%%;).
kPl &<Z5346>5CD 1=35241695@ J28J52 C1_
If you can't finu an expiess oi implieu intention, you can 8<Z5346>5CD 1=3524169 the piopei law of the contiact,
looking at *11 the ciicumstances of the contiact anu in paiticulai, ,-*. %8 ." 7$ <"'$ unuei the contiact. The
foimula foi the objectively asceitaineu piopei law of the contiact is: "that with which the tiansaction has its
3C8=5=4 19@ F8=4 251C 3899534689" (!*$%&1)+ K16% 4''/&)":% GTAR /)), 8$.8 "2. !"#421*F 0"2#. 1""E8 *. *11
!*5."#8( :1*5$ ,-$#$ 5"'.#*5. 4*<$> -$*< "!V%5$ O,-%5- 4*%'.*%'$< 5"'.#"1P> :*#.%$8C $A:$5.*.%"'p R W@ 1*,).
M13482= 48 389=6@52 (%' *<<%.%"' ." .-$ 5"'.#*5. %.8$1!): (1) the place wheie the contiact is to be J52S82F5@
(2) _014 6= 48 <5 @895 unuei the contiact (%8 .-%8 * 5"'.#*5. "! %'82#*'5$X8-%::%'&X8*1$ "! &""<8X5"'824$#X
$4:1"+4$'.Q) (S) 25=6@5935 8S 405 J12465= to the contiact (less weighty but ielevant) (4) place wheie the
38942134 _1= F1@5 (also less weighty but may be ielevant). @".$( +"2 8-"21< '". '$5$88*#%1+ $A512<$ *'+
5"'8%<$#*.%"' "! .-$ 5"'.#*5. %.8$1!> .-*. 8-"21< 7$ *11",$< ." !*5."# %' (M1++%& 3O ]%"0,(&0<OQP G'0)0%' (]U.).
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
4S
In ueteimining the objectively asceitaineu piopei law of a contiact, you aie listing anu _56Q069Q 1CC 405
25C5>194 S13482= anu ueciuing ovei all, .-%8 %8 .-$ 1*, ." &";$#' .-$ 5"'.#*5.. The pioblem is theie aie uiffeient
foimulations foi this, anu the way you foimulate the test may limit the factois the couit looks at when it is
asceitaining the piopei law objectively. Also uiffeient juuges will give uiffeient weight to uiffeient factois
(4*1" C)'<%%; GTEL (]U.g [ =%5E8"' !"2'< %4:1%$< %'.$'.%"'> [ N%17$#!"#5$ "7H$5.%;$1+ <$.$#4%'$< :#":$#
1*,F N$%&-%'& "! 5%#5248.*'5$8 !"# "7H$5.%;$ #$V1$5.$< :*#.%521*#1+ %' N%17$#!"#5$C8 H2<&4$'.)
p@".$( .-$ <$.$#4%'*.%"' "! .-$ 1*$+1%; $&($%& +), %8 <%!V%521. ." <%8.%'&2%8- !#"4 (BA%:013%+- )':%&0)1"%;
$&($%& +),F I00 %' !*$%&1)+ K16% 4''/&)":% 5"'8%<$#8 .-$ !*5. .-*. .-$ :*#.%$8 $A:$5.$< .-$ 5"'.#*5. ,"21< 7$
&";$#'$< 7+ W@ 1*, R .-%8 1""E8 1%E$ %. 4*+ 7$ 81%::%'& 7*5E %'." O%4:1%$<P *5.2*1 5-"%5$ *8 <%8.%'5. !#"4
"7H$5.%;$1+ *85$#.*%'$< :#":$# 1*,F N-$' +"2 *#$ "7H$5.%;$1+ <$.$#4%'%'& .-$ :#":$# 1*, "! * 5"'.#*5.> +"2 1""E
." ,-*. #$*8"'*71$ 5"'.#*5.%'& :*#.%$8 ,"21< -*;$ $A:$5.$< '". ,-*. .-$ *5.2*1 :*#.%$8 $A:$5.$<F
&4052 J8==6<C5 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5= 69 1 38942134 134689
The piopei law of the contiact will govein most issues that might aiise in a contiacts case. Bowevei, some
6==;5= 125 "(0 Q8>5295@ <D 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134: (a) M82F14689 of the contiact (b) M82F1C6465=
of the contiact (c) )1J1364D to contiact (u) "CC5Q1C64D. Also consiuei chaiacteiization of =;<=41935 >=
J2835@;25. I" +"2 428. V%#8. :<)&):0%&1=% .-$ #$1$;*'. %882$8 %' .-$ 5*8$( /#$*5- "! 5"'.#*5.Q R :#":$# 1*,F
o2$8.%"' "! !"#4*.%"' O%F$F 6%8 .-$#$ * 5"'.#*5. -$#$ *. *119PQ R !"#24 1*,F Y8 .-$#$ 8"4$ ".-$# #$1$;*'.
5"'.#*5.2*1 %882$ ,-%5- 4%&-. 7$ &";$#'$< 7+ * <%!!$#$'. 1$&*1 8+8.$4 *'< * <%!!$#$'. 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$Q
M&%I-$"&#
@".$( %' /0> ,$ :#"7*71+ ,"21<'C. 5"4$ 2: *&*%'8. * U2$8.%"' "! 5"'.#*5.2*1 !"#4*.%"' %' * H2#%8<%5.%"' 5*8$
7$5*28$ "! W7F54 'O Y[I%JE a ieal anu substantial connection between BC anu the facts on which a pioceeuing
is baseu is piesumeu to exist if the pioceeuing . conceins conceins contiactual obligations, anu
(i) the contiactual obligations, to a substantial extent, weie 48 <5 J52S82F5@ 69 ^2646=0 )8C;F<61,
(ii) by its 5BJ25== 452F=, the contiact is goveineu by the law of Biitish Columbia, oi
(iii) the contiact: (A) is foi the J;2301=5 8S J28J524Dg =52>635= 82 <840, foi use othei than in the
couise of the puichasei's tiaue oi piofession, anu (B) 25=;C45@ S28F 1 =8C636414689 8S <;=695== in
Biitish Columbia by oi on behalf of the sellei
/2. %! +"2 <"'C. !*11 ,%.-%' 'O Y[I%J> +"2 -*;$ ." !*11 7*5E "' 'O Q *'< $8.*71%8- * #$*1 *'< 8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"'F
I" +"2 4%&-. ,%'< 2: -*;%'& ." $8.*71%8- .-$ $A%8.$'5$ "! * 5"'.#*5.F
At the juiisuictional stage, you ieally can't say "we'll leave it to the tiial juuge" because you neeu to apply some
legal system to ueciue the issue of foimation. So you have to assume that theie was a contiact in existence.
Beteimining _054052 40525 6= 1 38942134 69 5B6=45935 is goveineu by EITBER ('". *1.$#'*.%;$8 OQP)
(1) $05 C1_ 8S 405 S82;F: if theie is an aigument at the juiisuictional stage that theie is no contiact, the
couit shoulu use the law of the foium anu, unless the aigument is "'"' $8 !*5.249 (they simply uiun't
agiee at all), you tieat the contiact as being in existence foi juiisuictional puiposes. If theie is a
juiisuiction selecting clause, you then uefei to that. I" .-$ *#&24$'. .-*. .-$#$ %8 '" 5"'.#*5. ,"21< 7$
<$5%<$< 7+ .-$ 8278.*'.%;$ 1*, .-*. ,"21< 7$ *::1%$< ." .-$ 4$#%.8 "! .-$ 5*8$ (M):U%";%& GTAR (])-,
.-$#$ ,*8 51$*#1+ *' *&#$$4$'. 7$.,$$' .-$ :*#.%$8> *#&24$'. ,*8 .-*. '"'d<%851"82#$ ;"%<$< .-*.
*&#$$4$'.> 1*, "! .-$ !"#24 8-"21< 7$ .-$ 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$Z 0=@ $U2%;*1$'.( F(*$%-8 H2#%8<%5.%"'d8$1$5.%'&
51*28$> $;$' %! .-$ #$8. "! 5"'.#*5. &"$8 <",' .-$ .27$> ,$C#$ &"%'& ." 8$;$# *'< *::1+ .-$ 51*28$) 0R
(2) $05 J;4146>5 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134: the law that ,"21< have been the piopei law of the contiact
(i.e. woulu govein the contiact) %! we assume theie is a contiact in existence (4+B%U( 9:</<*)':<1"%"
GTAG (])-, $;$' %! 1$..$# "! *55$:.*'5$ ,*8 :"8.$<> 5"2#. ,"21< -*;$ -$1< '" 5"'.#*5. 5*4$ %'." $A%8.$'5$
7$5*28$ .-$ bb[0 ,"21< -*;$ 7$$' I,%.G$#1*'<; F)&(/0< GTEO (])-, '". 51$*# %! .-$#$ ,*8 *' *&#$$4$'.>
5"2#. V%'<8 bb[0 ,"21< -*;$ 7$$' M'&1%8- 1*, 7$5*28$ .-$+ ,$#$ &"%'& ." *#7%.#*.$ %' ["'<"' %' $;$'. "!
<%8:2.$ ";$# .-$ 5"'.#*5. ,-%5- '", .-$+ 8*+ <"$8'C. $A%8.) (can be useu if aigument is "'"' $8 !*5.24").
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
44
M&%I-."$",/
Issues that can be classifieu as going to foimal valiuity of a contiact aie veiy easily chaiacteiizeu as issues
going to substance vs pioceuuie (J2835@;21C 25h;625F594= anu S82F1C 25h;625F594= seem to be veiy
closely ielateu).
M82F1C >1C6@64D of a contiact is goveineu $%.-$# (a) by +%H +(:1 :("0&):0/'E the law of the place wheie the
contiact was maue "#> %' .-$ *1.$#'*.%;$> (b) by 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 (V&%%"'<1%+;' GTEG -^X^,
ca( !"#4*1 ;*1%<%.+Z 03( 8278.*'5$ ;8 :#"5$<2#$Z 72. 8*4$ #$821. *. 7".- 1$;$18F ca <$5%8%"' *::*#$'.1+ #$:#$8$'.8
5"44"' 1*, 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$ !"# !"#4*1 ;*1%<%.+ "! 5"'.#*5t).
H;=46i6314689 S82 01>69Q 1 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 69 405 1C4529146>5: (a) foi +%H +(:1 :("0&):0/': contiacting
paities shoulu be fiee to take legal auvice about foimalities in the place wheie they happen to be contiacting
(so they aie alloweu to take local auvice) (b) alteinatively, if these contiacting paities aie '%+%:01"2 1 J28J52
C1_ to govein theii contiactual ielations, they ought to be able to iely on that law anu satisfy any iequiiement
fiom .-*. legal system foi the foimal valiuity of the contiact.
b#*5.%5$ c%:( 7$!"#$ +"2 4*E$ .-$ *#&24$'.> V%&2#$ "2. ,-*. %8 .-$ 7$8. #$821. !"# +"2# 51%$'. *'< *#&2$ .-*.F Y!
+"2 5-*#*5.$#%G$ .-$ %882$ *8 !"#4*1 ;*1%<%.+ "! .-$ 5"'.#*5.> +"2C#$ &"%'& ." &$. .," 5-*'5$8 "! -*;%'& !"#4$< *
;*1%< 5"'.#*5.( $%.-$# "'$ ,%11 ,"#E O%' .-$ *1.$#'*.%;$PF N-$#$*8 %! +"2 5-*#*5.$#%G$ .-$ %882$ *8 "'$ "! 8278.*'5$
;8 :#"5$<2#$> %. %8 *' $%.-$#X"# :#":"8%.%"'( %. %8 $%.-$# :#"5$<2#*1 O1$A !"#%P "# 8278.*'.%;$ O1$A 5*28*$PF
M82F1C64D >= =;<=41935KJ2835@;25: (@)&)A1 3 9<%+B(/&"% OaGG (]X^g %'H2#$< 8"55$# :1*+$# 82$8 '$&1%&$'.
TI 82#&$"' %' .-$ TJ): Issues: (1) Inuiana law iequiies that if you want to sue in contiact against a uoctoi, you
have to have a signeu, wiitten contiact (foimality) (2) Inuiana limitations peiiou (S) Inuiana hau a cap on
uamages. .%+;: All of these issues weie saiu to be pioceuuial, theiefoie the English couit uiun't have to pay
attention to them, so the contiact action pioceeueu.
)-?-)"$`
Theie aie ceitain categoiies of peisons who lack capacity to contiact: (a) maiiieu women (until iecently) (b)
minois (have limiteu capacity to contiact) (c) Califoinia capacity(.) (u) coipoiations (,*8 .-$ :$#8"' ,-"
8%&'$< .-$ 5"'.#*5. *2.-"#%G$< 7+ .-$ 5"#:"#*.%"'Q). Theie may also be some statutes to piotect ceitain classes
of people.
)82J8214689 31J1364D is oiuinaiily goveineu by 405 C1_ 8S 405 382J8214689j= @8F636C5 (the place in which
the company was incoipoiateu). "9@6>6@;1C 31J1364D: 0NCA suggests suggests that capacity to contiact
shoulu be ueteimineu by the 8<Z5346>5CD 1=35241695@ J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 (W<)&&(" 3O M("0&%)+
5&/'0 GTYE &#)-, #$*8"'%'&( *' %'<%;%<2*1 8-"21<'C. 7$ *71$ ." 7$8.", 5*:*5%.+ "' -%48$1! 7+ 8$1$5.%'& *
:#":$# 1*, ." &";$#' .-$ 5"'.#*5.).
(5"'.C<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
4S
"..,+-."$`: %(.,/ &M I-#'-$&%` -??.")-$"&#
uiven the piolifeiation of legislation in all legal systems which ueal with contiacts issues, when theie is a
contiacts action staiteu, the uefenuant looks aiounu anu asks: ",-*. 5*' Y *#&2$Q" anu tiies to finu a
potentially ielevant statute that can be invokeu to say the contiact was illegal.
/$,? G: '536@5g i62=4 8S 1CCg _054052 405 C1_ 1JJC65=! M8;2 J8==6<C5 389953469Q S13482= S82 6CC5Q1C64D:
(1) J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134: any allegeu illegality by the piopei law of the contiact is obviously going to
be ielevant; 64 6= )+,)-' Q869Q 48 1JJCD! (,$ <"'C. $;$' '$$< 5*8$8 ." %1128.#*.$ .-%8). 0"2#. ,%11 *8E( N-*. %8
.-$ :#":$# 1*, "! .-$ 5"'.#*5.Q Y! .-%8 8.*.2.$ %8 :*#. "! .-$ 1*, "! .-$ :#":$# 1*, "! .-$ 5"'.#*5.> :#%4* !*5%$
%. *::1%$8> 8" +"2 %'.$#:#$. %. *'< 8$$ .-$ $!!$5. "' .-$ 5"'.#*5.
(2) +%H +(:1 :("0&):0/' (law of the place wheie the contiact was maue): if LLC is the "'1+ connection to the
juiisuiction whose law is being invokeu (%F$F .-$ [[0 <"$8'C. ";$#1*: ,%.- *'".-$# 5"''$5.%'& H2#%8<%5.%"'),
at common law, illegality by the LLC is '". consiueieu to be ielevant; it is "(0 1JJC631<C5 (\10) ^((;' (]).
(S) +%H +(:1 '(+/01("1' (law of the place wheie the contiact is to be peifoimeu): theie is a ieluctance in the
common law couits, fiom a J8C63D 1JJ28130, to enfoice a contiact in ciicumstances wheie the
peifoimance of that contiact woulu bieach the laws of the place wheie the contiact is to be peifoimeu.
@".$( it is not a mattei of !"#$%&' public policy, but <"4$8.%5> !"#24 public policy of not enfoicing unlawful
baigains oi iequiiement unlawful conuuct - this is comity: you uon't want to iequiie a paity to a contiact
to bieach the law of some foieign juiisuiction (Sutheilanu } in V1++%'$1% GTET ^))-).
(4) +%H 6(&1 (law of the foium): the laws of the foium will be 25C5>194 6S they can be classifieu as "C1_= 8S
F19@1482D 1JJC6314689," laws which iequiie the couit, on ieauing anu inteipieting, feels it is obligeu to
apply in BC actions (whethei oi not theie is a unilateial choice of law) (43%"/% F&($%&01%' GTEA ^))-8
*::1%5*.%"' "! !"#24 1*, "! 4*'<*."#+ *::1%5*.%"' ." * 5"'.#*5. ,-%5- %8 &";$#'$< 7+ 8"4$ ".-$# :#":$#
1*,F a2#%8<%5.%"' OD@0P 5*8$F 0-"%5$ "! 1*, 51*28$X:#":$# 1*,( W@Z = *#&2$8 bC8 :#"8:$5.28 <%< '". 5"4:1+
,%.- /0 k$*1 M8.*.$ 35. O1$A !"#%P)
Ciicumstances in which a couit (BC couit) can apply the law of its ",' juiisuiction in =;<=464;4689 82
=;JJC5F59414689 foi the piopei law of the contiact:
(1) wheie the local law is J2835@;21C
(2) wheie the local law, although substantive not pioceuuial, is a S82;F C1_ 8S F19@1482D
1JJC6314689 (i.e. is of such a natuie that it 8-"21< be applieu) k1l if the statute has a ;96C14521C 308635
8S C1_ 2;C5 (i.e $A:#$881+ 8.*.$8 that ceitain pioceuuies must apply notwithstanuing that the piopei law
of the contiact may inuicate otheiwise, that's easy; k<l if the statute @85= 984 01>5 19 %H$&%'' 308635
8S C1_ 2;C5, that uoes not pievent the couits of the foium (1""E%'& *. .-$%# ",' 1*,8> .-%'E%'& *7"2. .-$
:#".$5.%;$ :2#:"8$ "! .-%8 8.*.2$ *'< .-"8$ ,-"4 %. %8 82::"8$< ." :#".$5.) fiom saying "this is a law of
manuatoiy application which I ought to apply" (43%"/% F&($%&01%'8 /003 #$*<8 kM3 8F qL O,-%5-
$A:#$881+ *::1%$8 ." 8*1$ "! 1*'< "2.8%<$ "! /0P 1%E$ * 2'%1*.$#*1 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$( %. %8 <$8%&'$< ." :#".$5.
/0 5"'824$#8).
(S) 3894212D 48 J;<C63 J8C63D: the couit may also apply a piovision of local law in piefeience to the
foieign piopei law of the contiact if it weie satisfieu that it woulu be contiaiy to public policy to uo
otheiwise (?5[*2&-1%' a %' 43%"/% F&($%&01%').
@".$( MM 82&&$8.8 .-*. ." 8*+ .-$ kM3 8-"21< *::1+ %' .-%8 5*8$ *8 * 4*..$# "! :271%5 :"1%5+ %8 ." 2'<$#52.
.-$ ;$#+ '*##", <$V%'%.%"' "! !"#24 :271%5 :"1%5+ O!"# 5"'V1%5.8 :2#:"8$8PF Y. %8 :#$!$#*71$ ." .#$*. .-%8 5*8$
*8 %';"1;%'& .-$ *::1%5*.%"' "! * !"#24 1*, "! 4*'<*."#+ *::1%5*.%"' ." * 5"'.#*5. ,-%5- %8 &";$#'$< 7+
8"4$ ".-$# :#":$# 1*,F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
46
/$,? O: "9452J254 4014 =414;45
If the law applies, you still have to inteipiet it to see whethei it applies to this case anu what the iesulteffect
woulu be. If the law is ielevant, it 428. be 5"'8%<$#$< but this uoes not mean that it will be applicable.
In inteipieting the =38J5 8S 1JJC6314689 8S =53;26465= C5Q6=C14689, the BCCA helu that because secuiities
legislation is uesigneu as consumei piotection legislation (piotecting investois), anu so each piovince's act is
limiteu in its scope of application to the piospectus issueu in that piovince. (F%)&'(" 3 >(+1;%" OaaO ^))-,
51*88 *5.%"'F 03 1"5*.$< .-$ b8 %' $*5- H2#%8<%5.%"' O,-$#$ .-$+ #$5$%;$< * :#"8:$5.28 *'< 4*<$ .-$%# %';$8.4$'.P
*'< 1%4%.$< $*5- "! .-$8$ 51*88$8 "! b8 ." .-$ 7$'$V%.8> %! *'+> "! .-$%# ",' 8$52#%.%$8 *5.8 5#$*.%'& * 8.*.2."#+ ."#.
*'< 8$..%'& *'+ 1%4%.*.%"' :$#%"<8F k$821.( 3/ *'< @/ b8 ,$#$ ,%:$< "2. $%.-$# 7$5*28$ .-$%# I3 ,"21< '". -*;$
5#$*.$< * 5*28$ "! *5.%"' "# .-$ 1%4%.*.%"' :$#%"< ,"21< -*;$ #2' "2.).
Consumei piotection legislation is uesigneu to piotect consumeis in that paiticulai juiisuiction. Fiom a
constitutional point, you can't cieate a statutoiy cause of action in BC anu expect othei piovinces to uiiectly
apply it. If a BC couit chooses to apply anothei piovince's statute by viitue of a BC choice of law iule, that is
uiffeient - that is not uiiect application, that is BC, thiough the 4$<%24 of its choice of law iule, ueciuing to
apply anothei piovince's law.
(#H(/$ ,#%")UI,#$
Foi an unjust eniichment claim: (1) go to ?1:%- C/+% DQ[ (2) go to W<&1'0($<%& 3 _1**%&*)" %! %. -$1:8 +"2
(S) go to M1"%&) 42/1+1"% (paia 2uu) %! .-*. -$1:8 +"2.
?1:%- C/+% DQ[E :<(1:% (6 +), &/+% 6(& &%'010/01("
DQ[IYJ the obligation to iestoie the benefit of an eniichment obtaineu at anothei peison's expense is
Q8>5295@ <D 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 8<C6Q14689.
DQ[IDJ the piopei law of the obligation is ueteimineu as follows:
(a) If the obligation aiises in connection with a 38942134, the piopei law of 405 C1_ 1JJC631<C5 48
405 38942134;
(b) If the obligation aiises in connection with a 4219=134689 389352969Q 19 6FF8>1<C5, its piopei
law is the +%H '10/' R the law of the place wheie the immovable is locateu;
(c) If the obligation aiises in 19D 84052 3623;F=41935=, its piopei law is the C1_ 8S 405 38;942D
_0525 405 592630F594 833;2= ("!.$' &$.8 5-"8$' 7+ ,*+ "! $1%4%'*.%"' W<&1'0($<%& 3
_1**%&*)" Oaaa ^))-).
If the obligation aiises in connection with 7".- a pie-existing 38942134;1C 25C14689=06J )"; 1 4219=134689
69>8C>69Q S8256Q9 C19@, you can take a piincipleu appioach anu examine all the factois that coulu be ielevant
to the stiength of the connection between the obligation anu the competing legal systems anu ueciue on the
law with 405 3C8=5=4 19@ F8=4 251C 3899534689 to the obligation.
Such factois shoulu be given weight accoiuing to a 251=891<C5 >65_ 8S 405 5>6@5935 anu theii ielative
impoitance to the issues at stake. So, 5130 8S 405 S13482= C6=45@ <D ?1:%- R M(&&1' _8;C@ <5 389=6@525@ anu
weigheu along with the following 989N5B01;=46>5 C6=4 8S S13482= to ueteimine which set of laws has the
3C8=5=4 19@ F8=4 =;<=419461C 3899534689 48 405 8<C6Q14689: (a) wheie the tiansaction unueilying the
obligation 833;225@ oi was intenueu to occui; (b) wheie the tiansaction unueilying the obligation was oi was
69459@5@ 48 <5 312265@ 8;4; (c) wheie the paities aie 25=6@594; (u) wheie the paities 3122D 89 <;=695==; (e)
what the 5BJ53414689= 8S 405 J12465= weie with iespect to goveining law at the time the obligation aiose;
anu (f) whethei the application of a paiticulai law woulu cause an 69Z;=4635 48 564052 8S 405 J12465= (M1"%&)
42/1+1"% 4&2%"01") OaaA ^)/) aff'u OaaR ^))-l, b8( 51*%4 *#%8$8 "2. "! 5"'.#*5.> 8" 8-"21< 7$ &";$#'$< 7+
k21$ LfgOLPO*P( :#":$# 1*, "! 5"'.#*5. O0"1"#*<"PF =8( 51*%4 %8 %' 5"''$5.%"' ,%.- *' %44";*71$> 8" 8-"21< 7$
&";$#'$< 7+ k21$ LfOLPO7P( 1$A 8%.28 O3#&$'.%'*P)F
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
47
?%&?,%$`
"Piopeity" incluues: (a) tiansfeis of piopeity %'.$# ;%;"8 (b) tiansfeis on ueath (succession) (c) tiusts anu
(u) bankiuptcy. Each one of these sub-categoiies has its own choice of law iules.
)U-%-)$,%"b-$"&#
In each piopeity case, theie is a necessity to 3C1==6SDK301213452675 405 J28J524D as eithei F8>1<C5
J28J524D oi 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D. The choice of law iule (as fai as juiisuictioniecognition anu
enfoicement) will <$:$'< on this classification. @".$( common law conflict of laws classifies piopeity as
movable oi immovable even if the legal systems involveu aie both common law juiisuictions.
@".$( movable anu immovable piopeity uo not coiiesponu necessaiily with peisonal anu ieal piopeity,
iespectively (although the oveilap is enoimous). So you have to go thiough exeicise of classifying.
$05 1JJ28130: the S82;F couit will ueciue (applying its own foium iules) ,<%&% 405 J28J524D 6= C83145@.
The foium couit will then consiuei expeit eviuence fiom .-*. legal system (wheie it has ueciueu the piopeity
is locateu) as to the 3012134526714689 8S 405 J28J524D (as movable oi immovable). The foium couit will then
select the appiopiiate 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 baseu on that chaiacteiization (.(22 3 5)H W(**1''1("%& /])-,
IJ03 <$5%<$8 4"#.&*&$ %8 1"5*.$< %' /0> *8E8 /0 6-", ,"21< +"2 5-*#*5.$#%G$ 4"#.&*&$8Q9).
I"( OKP D"#24 5"2#. <$5%<$8 !"# %.8$1! ,-$#$ .-$ :#":$#.+ %8 1"5*.$< O28%'& !"#24 #21$8P OLP D"#24 .*E$8 $;%<$'5$
"' 5-*#*5.$#%G*.%"' !#"4 .-$ 1$&*1 8+8.$4 ,-$#$ .-$ :#":$#.+ %8 1"5*.$< OfP D"#24 5"2#. 8$1$5.8 *::#":#%*.$
5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$ 7*8$< "' .-*. 51*88%V%5*.%"'F
This is one of the only situations in which 405 S82;F _6CC @5S52 1<=8C;45CD 48 405 C5Q1C =D=45F _0525 405
J28J524D 6= C83145@ as to how that piopeity shoulu be chaiacteiizeu.
.8314689 8S c"94525=4 69 .19@e
No legal system in the woilu is gong to say that C19@ is movable piopeity. Anu the common law is always
going to locate any 694525=4 69 C19@ as being locateu wheie the lanu is locateu. A moitgage (on lanu) is
consiueieu to be "an inteiest in lanu" so 1 F824Q1Q5 _6CC <5 C83145@ _0525 405 C19@ 6= C83145@.
But the 3012134526714689 8S cF824Q1Q5=e will uepenu on how the legal system ,-$#$ .-$ 1*'< %8 1"5*.$<
classifies moitgages - uiffeient legal systems classify moitgages in uiffeient ways. .(22 3 5)H W(**1''1("%&
is '". authoiity foi the pioposition that an inteiest in lanumoitgage is consiueieu to be immovable piopeity.
.8314689 8S "9419Q6<C5 I8>1<C5 ?28J524D
$19Q6<C5 F8>1<C5 J28J524D has a physical piesence anu is theiefoie easy to locate. "9419Q6<C5 F8>1<C5
J28J524D (shaies, uebts, etc, which may oi may not be $;%<$'5$< by some tangible piece of papei) aie haiuei
to locate because they uon't have a factual, physical location. So they aie usually locateu <D 3251469Q
k2146891Cl 12<64212D 2;C5= ($AF * 8-*#$ %8 1"5*.$< ,-$#$ .-$ ",'$# %8 <"4%5%1$<X#$8%<$'.X,-$#$ .-$ 8-*#$
#$&%8.#+ %8 1"5*.$<X,-$#$ .-$ 5"#:"#*.%"' %8 <"4%5%1$<). /0125= aie moie likely to be founu to be movable
piopeity, but theie have been cases wheie =0125= 69 C19@08C@69Q J28J524D weie founu to be immovable
piopeity.
/()),//"&#
Choice of law iule goveining succession: =;335==689 48 1*F8>1<C5 J28J524D is goveineu by +%H '10/' (the
law of the place wheie the piopeity is locateu).
Choice of law iule goveining succession: =;335==689 48 F8>1<C5 J28J524D is goveineu by 405 C1_ 8S 405
JC135 _0525 405 45=41482 _1= C1=4 @8F636C5@.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
48
-??,#'"[ -: &\,%\",V W )U,)]."/$
&\,%\",V
U8_ @8 " 38FF5935 J28355@69Q= 69 1 31=5 69>8C>69Q 5B421NZ;@6361C 5C5F594=d
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
49
H(%"/'")$"&#
G m H;26=@634689 91*$+1:10%&K$522648261C )8FJ545935
1)- 5:; 62<=> 5)?; @=<.+A.45.2- )5 ),,B
O m '6=3254689: ^(&/* @("XW("3%"1%"'
C:2=,A 5:; 62<=> 5)?; @=<.+A.45.2-B
D< +:2=,A 5:; 62<=> A;4,.-; 52 5)?; @=<.+A.45.2- 2- 5:; E<2=-A+ 26 F2<=> @(" W("3%"1%"'B
)U&"), &M .-V
%538Q964689 19@ ,9S8235F594 8S M8256Q9 H;@QF594= 19@ -2<6421C -_12@=
0.,, 5:.+ @=AE>;-5 G; <;42E-.H;A GI ) 62<;.E- 42=<5B
0:)5 ,)7 +:2=,A 5:; 62<=> )JJ,I 52 5:; >;<.5+ 26 5:; 4)+;B
%,)&+#"$"&# -#' ,#M&%),I,#$
)U,)]."/$
I. +59521C )89=6@5214689=:
A. )012134526714689: /;<=41935 >=! ?2835@;25
1. Always uone accoiuing to foium iules (S2'.%'&."' ; 3..#%1)
2. Piagmatic appioach: will it inconvenience the couit to apply 1$A 5*28*$. (c"1"!8"' ; a$'8$'> #$
1%4%.*.%"' :$#%"<8> :"88%71+ !"# *11 *11$&$<1+ :#"5$<2#*1 #21$8Z +1*10)01(" $%&1(;' h '/B'0)"013%)
S. When in uoubt, chaiacteiize as substantive (moie pioceuuial iules = moie anomalous iesult)
B. ,B3C;=68912D %;C5=
1. Public policy: easy to iaise by it #$*11+ has to be a foieign law that tuins the stomach of foium
2. Penal law: easy; pioceeuing must in the natuie of a suit in favoui of state whose law infiingeu
S. Revenue law: easy; someone has paiu taxes anu is seeking ieimbuisement
4. Public law: goou luck; seeking to enfoice goveinmental inteiests (exchange contiol laws, etc.)
C. '8F636C5 19@ %5=6@5935
1. Bomicile:
a) Resiuence (4$#$> :-+8%5*1 :#$8$'5$) PL0S
b) State of minu ('". *8 $*8+ ." $8.*71%8-): must have "intenueu to iesiue inuefinitely"
2. Resiuence (oiuinaiyhabitual):
a) Physical piesence (iequiies uuiation, but no minimum limit): "quality of iesiuence" PL0S
b) Intention (<",':1*+$<)
II. H;26=@634689: 1" $%&'(")* ):01("'
A. %;C5=: H;26=@634689 /6FJC636452K$522648261C )8FJ545935
1. Foi seivice within BC, meie piesence is '". enough, oiuinaiy iesiuence is iequiieu
2. Foi seivice outsiue BC: 0abc3 is the $A5128%;$ souice of juiisuiction:
a) 0abc3 8F f: juiisuiction iules (submissionoiuinaiy iesiuenceieal & substantial connection)
b) 0abc3 8F Kg: uo you fit in any of those categoiies wheie i&s piesumeu. (%! '".> &" 7*5E ." 8F f)
c) Follow the pioceuuie anu get youi piocess seiveu
u) Ball now in uefenuant's couit to object to juiisuictionteiiitoiial competence of the BC couit
B. '6=3254689: M82;F #89N)89>59659=
a) In BC, common law is mouifieu by 0abc3 8F KK( pioviues foi "uiscietion"
b) C}PTA is complete couification of common law test foi FNC, it aumits of '" $A5$:.%"'8 (c$5E)
2. Stay of pioceeuing: asking couit to stay its ",' pioceeuings (*8824$8 .-$#$ %8 *' *5.%"' %' !"#24)
(1) 0abc3 8F KKOKP: consiuei "inteiests of paities" anu "enus of justice" (I5"..%8- :#%'5:1$)
(a) S factois to consiuei (345-$4 199S SCC)
i) We uon't consiuei juiiuical auvantage sepaiately (?5I-*''"')
ii) Buiuen of pioof is on B, useu to be on P *this is uifficult: see notes*
iii) Quantum of pioof: anothei foium is 51$*#1+ moie appiopiiate (345-$4)
(2) 0abc3 8F KKOLP: 428. consiuei ciicumstances ielevant to pioceeuing:
(a) Y'512<$8( multiplicity of pioceeuingsconflicting uecisions in uiffeient couits
(b) [%8. 4*+ '". 7$ $A-*28.%;$; if theie aie othei ciicumstances, iaise them. Aigue
they aie factois to consiuei (c$5E 0"4%'5"> MM .-%'E8 .-%8 *#&24$'. ,*8 1$!. ":$').
S. Anti-suit injunction: asking couit foi oiuei piohibiting paity fiom continuing foieign pioceeuing
a) Pie-Conuitions:
(1) Anti-suit injunction iestiicteu to 5"'.%'2*.%"' "! !"#$%&' :#"5$$<%'&8 (not commencing)
(2) Nust fiist ask foieign couit to exeicise %.8 uiscietion to stay own action
b) If foieign couit uoes not stay own action:
(S) Evaluate foieign uecision not to stay B0T 0NLY IF we aie 405 F8=4 appiopiiate foium
(4) Beciue whethei foieign couit hau a #$*8"'*71$ 7*8%8 foi its uecision
(S) We will only giant anti-suit injunction if foieign action is 2'H28. "# ,%11 :#"<25$ %'H28.%5$
4. }uiisuiction-selecting clauses will be given veiy gieat weight bot aie not absolute; two issues:
a) Whethei clause is valiu: test is basically FNC (same s. 11 factois; just auu in clause as factoi)
(1) Buiuen on P to show =4289Q 31;=5 as to why clause shoulu not apply
b) Effect of a valiu clause
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
Su
III. %538Q964689 19@ ,9S8235F594: 1" $%&'(")* A/;2*%"0'
A. Canauian juugment: GW7?4
1. Blinu full faith anu cieuit (s. 6(S))
2. No cases; it's woiking peifectly
B. Non-Canauian J53;9612D juugment fiom ceitain juiisuictions: WSG4
1. Aus, 0S (AK, CA, C0, IB, 0R, WA; '" @B> '" cm), E0 (Austiia, ueimany, 0K) - .-*.C8 %.F
2. "ieal anu substantial connection" basis foi i&e is '". available (only piesence+submission)
S. Auvantage: iegistiation piocess so you uon't have to stait a new action
C. Non-Canauian J53;9612D juugment fiom non-C0EA-iecognizeu juiisuictions: W(**(" K),
1. At common law, 2 iequiiements to iecognize anu enfoice foieign juugment:
a) Final anu conclusive (#$8 H2<%5*.*) ANB
b) Foieign juiisuiction hau juiisuiction "in the inteinational sense":
(1) B was J25=594 in juiisuiction when the action was commenceu 0R
(2) B =;<F6445@ to juiisuiction of foieign couit 0R
(a) 0bjecting to juiisuiction = submission
(b) Asking couit to exeicise uiscietion (FNC) = submission (:#"7*71+)
(c) Naking technical aiguments = submission ('" <"27. *7"2. %.)
(S) %51C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 (1%E$1+ ." 7$ !"2'<)
(a) SCC seems to iequiie a &#$*.$# 5"''$5.%"' foi i&e of non-Canauian juugments
B. Non-Canauian 989NJ53;9612D juugment: W(**(" K),
1. Stait with tiauitional iules foi iecognition anu enfoicement (common law)
2. Auu-ons foi non-pecuniaiy oiueis (b#" I,%'&): cleaispecific limiteu in scope least
buiuensome iemeuy unfoieseen obligations thiiu paities use of juuicial iesouices
E. '5S5935=:
1. Exclusionaiy iules (foium public policy; penal law; ievenue law, public law)
2. Bieach of natuial justice
S. Fiauu on the couit
Iv. H;26=@634689: 1" &%* ):01("'
A. I831F<6h;5 %;C5:
1. Foium will not take juiisuiction in action ielating to 1*'< 1"5*.$< %' !"#$%&' H2#%8<%5.%"'
B. ,B35J4689= 48 405 I831F<6h;5 %;C5:
1. Claim is baseu on contiact oi equity: %F$F +"2r#$ !#*4%'& *8 %' :$#8"'*4 *5.%"' "# $U2%.*71$ 51*%4
2. Auministiation of an estate oi a tiust anu piopeity consists of:
a) Immovables anu movables in juiisuiction ANB
b) Immovable outsiue of juiisuiction
v. %538Q964689 19@ ,9S8235F594: 1" &%* A/;2*%"0'
A. Canauian couits will '". i&e foieign %' #$4 0R %' :$#8"'*4 actions uealing with local lanu
B. c-%8 %8 &""< 1*, %' .-$"#+ /Tc(
1. 3. %' :$#8"'*4 1$;$1> ,$ '", #$5"&'%G$ %' :$#8"'*4 '"'d:$52'%*#+ H2<&4$'.8 (b#" I,%'&)
2. 3. %' #$4 1$;$1> ,$ 4*+ 7$ 5"'8.%.2.%"'*11+ "71%&*.$< ." #s$ %! !#"4 ".-$# 0*'*<%*' :#";%'5$
vI. )08635 8S .1_
A. %59>86
1. 0iuinaiy choice of law iule applies uomestic law of the juiisuiction selecteu by the iule
2. Paitial Renvoi applies the 5"'V1%5.8 1*, of the juiisuiction selecteu by the iule anu takes:
a) A tiansmission (,%'<8 2: *::1+%'& 1*, "! * .-%#< 1$&*1 8+8.$4)
b) A iemission (,%'<8 2: *::1+%'& ",' 1*,)
S. Total Renvoi asks foieign expeit "how woulu +"2# 5"2#. solve this case." = '%&-.4*#$t
B. "936@5941C X;5=4689
1. The subsiuiaiy issue (2:"' ,-%5- .-$ 4*%' U2$8.%"'> ,-%5- %8 *18" * 5"'V1%5.8 %882$> %8 <$:$'<$'.) is
a 389iC634= 6==;5 69 64= 8_9 26Q04 ('$$<8 * 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$) ANB
2. Application of foium iule will piouuce a @6SS52594 25=;C4 fiom application of 1$A 5*28*$ iule
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S1
C. I12261Q5
1. Foimal valiuity of maiiiage: goveineu by law of the JC135 8S 35C5<214689 8S F12261Q5 EITBER
a) Bomestic law 0R (%' .-$ *1.$#'*.%;$)
b) Conflicts iule
2. Essential valiuity of maiiiage: goveineu by EITBER ('". *1.$#'*.%;$8)
a) Bual uomicile iule
b) Law of the intenueu matiimonial home
B. $824=
1. 0iuinaiy iule: 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.% (law of the place wheie the toit occuiieu)
2. Potential Exceptions
a) Special choice of law iule foi paiticulai toits baseu on %'-$#$'. 5-*#*5.$#%8.%58
(1) MA. uefamation: law of the place of the most substantial haim
b) "Inteinational-level" toit exception
c) Play with location of the toit
u) Play with chaiacteiization of the toit
e) Renvoi: look to the foieign juiisuiction's 5"'V1%5.8 #21$8 insteau of uomestic law
f) Public policy exclusionaiy iule
g) Contiact: incluue a choice of law piovision
h) Foium shop
E. )8942134=: :#%4*#+ 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$( :#":$# 1*, "! .-$ 5"'.#*5.
1. Piopei law (goveins most issues):
a) Subjective: $%.-$# (1) expiessly stateu oi (2) implieu
b) 0bjectively asceitaineu
2. Foimation:
a) Law of the foium 0R ('". *1.$#'*.%;$8)
b) Putative law of the contiact
S. Foimalities:
a) [$A 1"5% 5"'.#*5.28 (law of the place wheie the contiact was maue) 0R (%' .-$ *1.$#'*.%;$)
b) Piopei law of the contiact
4. Illegality:
a) Step 1: Beciue whethei the law applies: 4 possible connecting factois:
(1) Piopei law of the contiact: ielevant
(2) [[0: '". ielevant
(S) [[I: ielevant (policy ieason)
(4) [$A !"#%: ielevant IF they can be classifieu as "laws of manuatoiy application"
b) Step 2: Inteipiet that law
F. (9Z;=4 ,92630F594: goveineu by the piopei law of the "71%&*.%"'
1. If obligation aiises in connection with a contiact: the law applicable to the contiact
2. If obligation aiises in connection with an immovable: 1$A 8%.28
S. If obligation aiises in any othei ciicumstance: law of the countiy wheie eniichment occuis
u. ?28J524D
1. Fiist, must 301213452675 405 J28J524D: immovable oi movable. Appioach:
a) Foium will ueciue (applying its own foium iules) ,-$#$ piopeity is 1"5*.$<
(1) Lanu: easy to locate - wheie is it.
(2) "Inteiest in lanu": wheie the lanu is locateu (4"#.&*&$ %8 5"'8%<$#$< 6%'.$#$8. %' 1*'<9)
(S) Shaies: locateu by cieating (iational) aibitiaiy iules
b) Foium will then consiuei expeit eviuence fiom .-*. legal system on chaiacteiization
(1) @".$: no legal system in the woilu is going to say lanu is immovable piopeity
(2) /2.( "moitgages" may be classifieu uiffeiently by uiffeient legal systems
2. Foium will then =5C534 1JJ28J26145 308635 8S C1_ iule 7*8$< "' .-*. 5-*#*5.$#%G*.%"'
a) Choice of law iule foi succession to %4movable piopeity: goveineu by 1$A 8%.28
b) Choice of law iule foi succession to movable piopeity: goveineu by the law of the place
wheie the testatoi was last uomicileu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S2
-??,#'"[ ^: U"/$&%")-. &($."#,: H(%"/'")$"&#
! The way in which common law juiisuictional uecision has uevelopeu
! Nost iecent SCC case, unanimous uecision: W+/B C%'(&0' K0; 3 \)" >&%;) D[YD 9WW
! EE is not convinceu the SCC fully unueistanus the way the common law juiisuictional uecision has
evolveu ovei the yeais
H(%"/'")$"&# /"I?.")"$,% K $,%%"$&%"-. )&I?,$,#),
Pie-19
'(
centuiy in Englanu: seivice within Englanu only
! If you wanteu to sue someone in Englanu, you hau to commence the action by seiving piocess on the
uefenuant 69 Englanu - if the uefenuant wasn't in Englanu, you coulun't uo anything, you coulun't
litigate in Englanu
18S2 in Englanu: Pailiament enacteu the 0"44"' [*, b#"5$<2#$ 35. - foi the fiist time, it was possible to
seive a uefenuant $A H2#%8, 8$#;%5$ $A H2#%8 became peimissible foi the fiist time
! This eventually migiateu to iules of the couit - S&;%& YY set out the ciicumstances in which an
English couit woulu consiuei peimitting the plaintiff to seive the uefenuant outsiue of Englanu (theie
was a list of ciicumstances)
! It was necessaiy unuei 0iuei 11 to ask the English couit's peimission (hau to seek leave) to seive the
wiit $A H2#%8
! In oiuei to be gianteu leave foi seivice $AdH2#%8, you hau to establish:
1. that that youi S134=K31;=5 8S 134689 S5CC _64069 895 8S 405 3623;F=41935= 69 &2@52 GG
2. that you hau a Q88@ 12Q;1<C5 31=5 89 405 F5264= - this was not a fiivolous action, you hau a
:#%4* !*5%$ case
S. that Englanu was the F8=4 1JJ28J26145 S82;F foi the action (uiscietionaiy element) - !"#24
5"';$'%$'8 (onus is on the plaintiff as opposeu to !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8 unuei uiscietion, the
onus foi which woulu be on the uefenuant)
! The English couits weie veiy conscious in 18S2 (anu into the piesent uay) of teiiitoiial soveieignty
anu that in issuing a wiit in Englanu calling on a uefenuant in anothei juiisuiction to come to Englanu
to uefenu an Englanu action, this was a soit of infiingement of the soveieignty of the othei juiisuiction
- theoiists since have iationalizeu this
! The buiuen of pioof in peisuauing the Englanu couit to give the plaintiff leave to seive the wiit $Ad
H2#%8 was on the plaintiff
! The wiit was seiveu $AdH2#%8, anu the uefenuant showeu up in Englanu
! The uefenuant coulu still object to the juiisuiction of the English couit - so theie was anothei heaiing
! The fiist heaiing was an $Ad:*#.$ heaiing, the seconu heaiing was an auveisaiial heaiing, at which
point the couit go the othei siue of the aigument anu it was peimissible foi the couit to say, nope, we
maue a mistake, we uon't have juiisuiction
In BC: we copieu 0iuei 11 into oui iules of couit
! If you wanteu to biing an action against a uefenuant in BC - fine, no pioblem
! If you wanteu to biing an action against a uefenuant who is in anothei juiisuiction, you have to apply
to the BC couit foi leave to seive $AdH2#%8 using the same S elements above
(5"'.C<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
SS
1976 in BC: the biight minus conceineu with civil litigation thought this was too inefficient
! Why uo we neeu two heaiings. It is inefficient - let's get iiu of the $Ad:*#.$ application
! Let's let any plaintiff who wants to biing an action against a uefenuant $AdH2#%8, anu they can seive the
BC wiit $AdH2#%8 without asking the couit's peimission
! We now iefei to seivice eAdH2#%8 as of iight
! So plaintiffs coulu simply fill out the appiopiiate foims stating which of the ciicumstances in C/+%
YQIYJ (6 0<% 9/$&%*% W(/&0 C/+%' (which weie similai to 0iuei 11) they weie ielying on, anu then
seive the wiit
! Anu if the uefenuant uiun't come anu object to juiisuiction, the BC couit coulu pioceeu even if the
uefenuant completely ignoieu the BC wiit
2uu6 in BC: W7F54 came into foice
! Nothing much has changeu in substance but the C}PTA pioviues that it is .-$ souice of juiisuiction in
the piovince - so in oiuei to biing an action in BC you have to satisfy the C}PTA
! /".."4 1%'$( if you'ie not planning on piacticing law in BC, the common law as mouifieu by Noiguaiu
continues
'"/)%,$"&#: M&%(I #&#N)&#\,#",#/
! 0iiginally, in Englanu, seivice as of iight on someone in Englanu
! Englanu uistinguisheu between uiscietion foi seivice within Englanu anu seivice $AdH2#%8
! If the uefenuant, at common law in Englanu in the 19
'(
centuiy, was seiveu in Englanu (tempoiaiy
piesence was enough) the couit uiu have @6=3254689 to set asiue seivice of the English wiit on the
uefenuant in Englanu but the uiscietion was a veiy naiiow uiscietion - it was essentially an "abuse of
piocess aigument" - the uefenuant hau to establish the plaintiff's action was fiivolous oi vexatious oi
somehow an abuse of piocess of the couit
! The numbei of cases wheie the English couit was peisuaueu to stay the English action because the English
action was an abuse of piocess, you coulu piobably count on the fingeis of one hanu
! Apait fiom buiuens of pioof, theie has been no change in the uesciiptionuefinition of uiscietion (!"#24
'"'d5"';$'%$'8) - evei
! But theie was massive evolution of the abuse of piocess test, staiting in 1976 - Yije 40+)"01: 90)& W)'% -
this was the beginning of the evolution
! The English couits lookeu aiounu the woilu anu iealizeu Englanu uoesn't have a monopoly on justice
- we have to iespect othei legal systems
! So maybe fiom time to time we shoulu stay an English action
! They uiun't change the teims of the test (continueu to use those woius), but they began to inteipiet
them uiffeiently
! So staiting in 1976, we see iapiu evolution in Englanu of the uiscietionaiy piinciple
! We see lanumaik case aftei lanumaik case
! Theie is now in Englanu anu in Canaua (in the common law piovinces) - theie is no uiffeience in the
uiscietion exeiciseu aftei seivice within the piovince anu the uiscietionaiy piinciples goveining
seivice $AdH2#%8 - =1F5 J26936JC5
! So two elements: (1) iules anu (2) uiscietion - using same piinciple foi !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S4
-??,#'"[ ): "I?&%$-#$ )-/,/
+,#,%-. )&#/"',%-$"&#/
)012134526714689
5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%" GTTL /))
! Bas juiisuiction issues, choice of law issues, anu chaiacteiization (substance vs. pioceuuie) issues
/;FF12D
! BC is the place wheie the action was commenceu
! Saskatchewan was the place wheie the acciuent occuiieu
! 0ltimately, SCC saiu Saskatchewan (SK) law is the goveining law
! BC is the foium, but Saskatchewan law is the applicable law
! What the BC couit shoulu have uone was apply SK law to the toit claim
! BC law is the 1$A !"#% (the law of the foium)
! SK law is the 1$A 5*28*$ (the law selecteu by the choice of law iule to govein the meiits of the action;
the applicable substantive law)
M134=
! Cai acciuent in Saskatchewan
! P was 12 yeais olu at the time, iiuing with his fathei, they iun into SK-owneu anu uiiven cai
! Foi toit action, it is easy to iuentify the location - SK is the 1$A 8%.28 (the law of the place)
! 12 yeai olu boy was injuieu
! When he ieaches age of majoiity, ueciues to sue fathei anu the SK uiivei
! Befenuants aigue that BC shoulu not take juiisuiction, it is !"#24 '"' 5"';$'%$'8 (it is not the appiopiiate
foium)
! BC couit ueciues it is the most appiopiiate foium foi the action, claims juiisuiction
$05 I5264= 8S 405 $824 -34689:
! Pie-SCC uecision in this case, we hau a @8;<C5 <1225C 2;C5 - the toit must have been actionable in the
foium anu not justifiable in the place wheie it occuiieu
! Bottom line: the net iesult of the application of this uouble baiiel toit choice of law iule in this case:
all BC law woulu apply (pioceuuial anu substantive) - theie woulu not have been any issue in the BC
couit about the application of any SK law
! BC law woulu goveins the meiits of the toit action (substantive law)

! In this case, the SCC says: we uon't like that choice of law iule anymoie, it uoesn't give enough weight to
the law of the place wheie the toit occuiieu
! New choice of law iule: 1$A 1"5% <$1%5.% - the law of the place wheie the toit occuiieu - so, SK law applies to
the meiits of the case, not BC law
! So the SCC hau to ueal with issues that weien't ielevant in the BC couit because now we've got uiffeiences
between SK law on the meiits of the toit action
! At that time, SK typically was hostile to actions biought against uiiveis by giatuitous passengeis
! A giatuitous passengei coulu not sue the uiivei unless theie was gioss negligence, simple negligence
was not sufficient
! So the plaintiff hau to establish gioss negligence on the pait of the uiivei
! Also: limitation peiious - SK: 1 yeai, BC: 2 yeais
! This is why the action was biought in BC in the fiist place
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
SS
X;5=4689 ^5S825 /)): "= 405 C6F6414689 J5268@ 2;C5 J2835@;21C 82 =;<=41946>5d
! Possibilities:
! If the BC limitation iule is a iule of pioceuuie, BC law applies anu the plaintiff is okay to biing the
action
! If the BC limitation iule is substantive, it uoes not apply because SK law is the 1$A 5*28*$
K ^;4 what if the SK limitation iule is pioceuuial. - the BC couit woulu not apply it
! If the BC limitation iule is substantive, anu the SK limitation iule is pioceuuial - theie woulu be
no limitation peiiou, in theoiy, neithei iule woulu apply
! So the SCC iethinks the chaiacteiization piocess foi limitation peiious (oi you can aigue, moie geneially,
foi all allegeuly pioceuuial iules) - 406= 31=5 6= 3524169CD <69@69Q _640 25=J534 48 C6F6414689 J5268@=
! The olu uistinction which is consiueieu by the couit is that substantive iules ueal with the iights anu
pioceuuial iules ueal with the iemeuy - on its face, this is stiaightfoiwaiu <;4 issues aiise:
! Is theie a iight without a iemeuy.
! You can't have a iemeuy without a iight - so we may not have an easy uefinition
! La Foiest: why uo we have this iule in the fiist place.
! Why uo we say a couit applies its own pioceuuie. - Foi convenience of the couit
K $06= 6= 405 <1=6= S82 405 =;<=41935KJ2835@;25 3012134526714689 2;C5
! So, you take a J21QF1463 1JJ28130 to chaiacteiization
! La Foiest cites BCCA uecision: piagmatic - is it going to inconvenience us to use somebouy else's iules
heie.
! Limitation peiious aie *#7%.#*#+ (although they have policy ieasons behinu them)
! Theie is no inconvenience in using a uiffeient limitation peiiou; you may not like the faiiness of the
iesult, but it is a puiely aibitiaiy peiiou of time
! So, in teims of chaiacteiization, this case says you take a piagmatic appioach
! The ieason foi applying youi own pioceuuie is youi convenience, the convenience of the couit
! Anu if theie is no inconvenience involveu, you can apply the iule in the 1$A 5*28*$
! You uon't neeu to chaiacteiize both limitation peiious if you aie saying theie is no inconvenience
using theiis, so let's just use theiis
! So the BC couit can apply whatevei limitation peiiou is moie just anu convenient
! @".$( Eviuence iules aie almost always chaiacteiizeu as pioceuuial - couits uon't want to leain about
othei juiisuictions' eviuence iules when they aie heaiing a case
!"0%&")01(")+ 4''(:1)01(" (6 9:1%":% )"; 5%:<"(+(2- 3 .)*=) GTTY -^)-
! Beals with paities to an action - who can be a plaintiff, who can be a uefenuant. - these aie matteis of
pioceuuie foi the foium (no one is aiguing otheiwise)
K V014 405D 125 @869Q 69 406= 31=5 6= 5B459@69Q 5C6Q6<6C64D <5D89@ 405 J12465= 4014 405 S82;F C1_ =1D=
319 <5 J12465=
! ?C16946SS=: At common law, we uiun't have many exclusionsexceptions - natuial peisons anu coipoiations
("legal entities") coulu be plaintiffs
! Common law exception: enemy aliens cannot biing actions in a common law juiisuiction (but theie is
a high stanuaiu, you have to have maue a ueclaiation of wai against the countiy)
! '5S59@194=: Paities who cannot be uefenuants: soveieign immunity - goveineu by statute (this is moie
public inteinational law, we won't go into this)
! The .)*=) case illustiates how the foium can extenu its foium pioceuuial uefinitions
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S6
M134=
! Natiimonial action - Bamza wife is suing Bamza husbanu ie uivision of piopeity - she claims he has
piopeity anu she wants pait of it
! The IAST is the plaintiff because it is seeking a ueclaiation that neithei Bamza has any piopeity inteiest in
its assets
! Nis. Bamza aigues IAST has no status, theiefoie cannot sue - IAST, which is an association is not a natuial
peison anu it is not a coipoiation (AB uoes have iules that iecognize some associations but this paiticulai
one, IAST, wasn't one that AB iecognizeu in its pioceuuial iules as having stanuing to biing an action)
! But, the association, IAST, was cieateu anu iegisteieu in Switzeilanu - it is a Swiss society
%51=8969Q
! The question is not whethei IAST is iecognizeu as having status to sue in AB law, it is a question of
whethei AB law can look to Swiss law (the home of the association) to see whethei it is a legal entity with
capacity to sue anu be sueu unuei Swiss law
K /8g 405 C5Q1C =414;= 8S 1 S8256Q9 J124D @5J59@= ;J89 64= (," C1_ - this is a S82;F 2538Q964689 2;C5,
which is a conflicts iule
! )8F64D iequiies this - it iequiies us to look outwaius
! If an entity has status to sue anu be sueu by its home law, then we will iecognize them as having status
heie
! It also uefines what is iequiieu foi status to sue anu be sueu in AB
! @".$( In oiuei to piove foieign law in the couit, common law iequiies expeit eviuence
K $06= 31=5 6CC;=42145= 08_ D8; 319 5B459@ D8;2 8_9 J2835@;21C 2;C5= <D 1 2538Q964689 2;C5
>/*$%& ?%3%+($*%"0 W(&$(&)01(" 3O W(**1''1("%& (6 F(+1:% 6(& 0<% M%0&($(+1' GTTG (])-
! English Couit of Appeal Case
! The paities weie fighting ovei owneiship of a bionze statue, which at the time of litigation was in the
hanus of Lonuon police
! Bumpei Bevelopment, who was a iecent puichasei of the bionze statue, sueu the Lonuon police foi
conveision, uetinue, etc.
! vaiious inteiveneis showeu up wanting stanuing in the action, saying the statue was actually theiis
! 0ne claim was fiom a guy fiom Inuia - yeais befoie, in the 197us, Ni. Ramamuithi was uigging aiounu
on his piopeity anu he founu this bionze temple anu solu it
! The temple was solu anu iesolu ovei time
! The claim by this peison is fine - he is a natuial peison
! Who wants to be an inteivenei.
! Inuia wants to be an inteivenei - this is fine, Inuia is a soveieign state
! The state wheie it was founu wanteu to be an inteivenei - this is fine as well
! What causeu the pioblem. - the iuineu temple wanteu to sue
! Theie was a stone in the temple, which wanteu stanuing in the action
! c-$ Y882$: Boes a iuineu temple in Inuia have status to suebe sueuact as inteivenei.
! To answei this, we have to look at whethei it have the capacity to sue in Inuia, its home juiisuiction
! The English juuge lookeu at expeit eviuence foi Inuian law - anu in Inuian law (technically, in Binuu
law actually), a iuineu temple uoes have status to sue anu be sueu
! The piocess useu in the Bumpei Bevelopment case is exactly the same as the piocess in the Bamza case
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S7
9/::%'' !"0%&")01(")+ !": 3 G"31&("*%"0)+ GH$(&0 !"0%&")01(")+ GTTY &#/)
! In this case, the couit is actually inteipieting anu applying its own foium pioceuuial iule
! Issue: the stanuing of a foieign coipoiation
! Beals with an 0ntaiio iule that iestiicteu foieign coipoiations fiom biinging ceitain actions unless they
weie iegisteieu - this is a way of foicing foieign coipoiations which woulu be caiiying on business in the
piovince to iegistei in the piovince (likely foi iegulatoiy puiposes)
M134=
! We have a contiact action pioceeuing in 0ntaiio
! Contiact between Success (a company incoipoiateu in NY state) anu Enviionmental Expoit (EE) (an
0ntaiio company)
! The contiact was foi the puichase of useu tiie manufactuiing equipment, which was locateu in 0ntaiio
anu being puichaseu foi iesale to a Chinese company
! The contiact containeu an aibitiation clause, which hau been useu a few times
! 0n one occasion, the aibitiatoi oiueieu EE to mouify its opeiations but the 0ntaiio company uiun't
comply
! So the NY company biings an action in 0ntaiio foi enfoicement of the aibitial awaiu, puisuant to the
W'.*#%" 3#7%.#*.%"' 35.
! 0ne of the uefences iaiseu by the 0ntaiio company: the NY company hau no status to sue in 0ntaiio
because it was not iegisteieu in 0ntaiio (this is a pioceuuial iule, no question about it, so the 0ntaiio iule
woulu be the one that applies - 1$A !"#%)
%51=8969Q
! Shoulu Success (the NY company) have been iegisteieu in 0ntaiio.
! Looks up uefinition in 0ntaiio statute, then looks at common law - you have to be iegisteieu if you aie
caiiying on business in 0ntaiio
! Question: Was the NY coipoiation caiiying on business in 0ntaiio (this is simply the inteipietation
anu application of a paiticulai pioceuuial iule).
! Answei: yes, it hau an office heie, it hau employees heie, etc.
@)&)A1 3 9<%+B(/&"% OaGG (]X^
! 0iuinaiy meuical malpiactice case
! English soccei playei toie his ACL anu was auviseu to go to the 0S foi suigeiy
! The suigeiy faileu, his soccei caieei is ovei
! So he sues
! Fiist he sues in Inuiana (in toit)
! Theie is some misunueistanuing about why he withuiaws that action
! Bis solicitois thought they coulu stay the action in Inuiana anu puisue in Englanu insteau - tuineu out,
in Inuiana, it was consiueieu a final juugment anu his action was toast
! Fiist question foi English couit: Bo we iecognize the Inuiana uecision as having ueciueu on the meiits
of the case - they ueciueu it was (even though theie was no uecision on the meiits in Inuiana)
! Still left: the plaintiff's claim in contiact against the Inuiana uoctois (signeu in Inuiana)
! Numbei of issues iaiseu in the contiact action (pioceeuing in Englanu)
! Fiist issue: Bo we pay any attention to Inuiana law which iequiies that if you want to sue in contiact
against a uoctoi, you have to get that contiact in wiiting (signeu, sealeu anu ueliveieu) - uo we apply
this.
! Seconu issue: Theie was an Inuiana limitations peiiou
! Thiiu issue: Theie was an Inuiana cap on uamages
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S8
! Each of these issues weie subject to chaiacteiization analysis
! In the enu, each of those issues was saiu to be a pioceuuial iule, anu theiefoie the English couit uiun't
have to pay any attention to them - so the contiact action pioceeueu
,B3C;=68912D %;C5=
./"01"20(" 3 400&1+ GETP (]?)
M134=
! Wiitten by Loiu Watson
! It is a "iecognition anu enfoicement of foieign juugments" case
! The couit being askeu to iecognize anu enfoice a foieign juugment is 0ntaiio
! The juugment is fiom NY state
! The Befenuant in the action (in NY state) is Ni. Attiil (Ni. A) - he is active in NY state as a uiiectoi of a
coipoiation caiiying on business in NY
! An action is biought against Ni. A peisonally as a uiiectoi (in NY state)
! The cause of action is baseu on a NY law - the law was to the effect that if any mateiial issueu by a
company shoulu contain a mateiial false misiepiesentation, the uiiectois who signeu it woulu be
peisonally liable
! So A is a uiiectoi, theie is a false misiepiesentation, Ni. Buntington (Ni. B), one of the peisons misleu,
biings an action against Ni. A anu he wins
$05 %538Q964689 19@ ,9S8235F594 8S 1 M8256Q9 H;@QF594 -34689 69 &941268
! Ni. A happens to be iesiuent in 0ntaiio anu hau no assets in NY against which Ni. B coulu enfoice his
juugment
! So Ni. B has to come to 0ntaiio anu ask the couit in 0ntaiio to iecognize anu enfoice the NY state
juugment
! Theie was no question that Ni. A hau paiticipateu, so the NY couit hau juiisuiction
! The only possible uefence, the one that was iaiseu by Ni. A in 0ntaiio (it is a uefence to iecognition anu
enfoicement of a foieign juugment) - the aigument: the NY law on which the NY juugment was baseu was
a J591C C1_
?) %51=8969Q
! The PC iejecteu that :<)&):0%&1=)01(" (this is wheie chaiacteiization comes in: you'ie looking at a foieign
law, anu asking, how uo we chaiacteiize that law.)
! Theie aie two options in teims of chaiacteiization:
1. Bow uoes that juiisuiction chaiacteiize its own iule. (1$A 5*28*$ appioach)
2. We'll ueciue foi ouiselves (1$A !"#%)
! PC has to auuiess the appioach issue because in the 0ntaiio couit, the juuge saiu, "well the NY state says
its a penal law, so its a penal law" - 1$A 5*28*$ chaiacteiization
! PC says, No, that is not the way to go about it
! "S D8; Q8 1<8;4 64 4014 _1Dg D8;j25 Q869Q 48 Q54 6945291C 69389=6=4593D because the chaiacteiization of
a paiticulai iule won't be consistent within the foium - it will uepenu on what NY says its law is, anu what
eveiy othei state says its law is
! We must have 6945291C 389=6=4593D
! So, now we get the iationalizationjustification foi the 1$A !"#% methou of chaiacteiization
! You can 5"'8%<$# what the foieign state says about its own iule, its ielevant, anu it might be veiy
weighty but we aie not 7"2'< by it
! We ueciue foi ouiselves whethei that iule shoulu be chaiacteiizeu, anu how it shoulu be chaiacteiizeu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
S9
! @".$: the analysis is the same foi uiiect (choice of law context) oi inuiiect (iecognition anu enfoicement of
a foieign juugment) application of a foieign law
! So if Ni. A hau iun off to 0ntaiio the minute he knew Ni. B was juugment-pioof in NY anu biought his
action in 0ntaiio, if the 0ntaiio couit ueciueu to apply NY law to the meiits of the case, Ni. B still
coulu iaise the uefence that this iule is a penal iule - anu the same analysis woulu be useu
! @(0%E '5i6964689 8S J591C 2;C5: a penal law involves a pioceeuing in the natuie of a suit by the state whose
law has been infiingeu, by the state, by an officei of the state, oi by a membei of the public in the chaiactei
of a common infoimei (a ciiminal action) (p. 1u6-1u7)
U5C@
! In this case, he ueciues, applying that uefinition to the facts of this case, that this is not a state action,
this is an action foi compensationuamages by someone who is being misleu
! Ni. A might think of it as being penal anu I suppose you can say that that was the intent of NY state,
but it is not an action by the state - it is biought by an investoi who has been misleu anu suffeieu
uamages
/8g 4069Q= 48 41f5 1_1D S28F 405 31=5:
! Penal law uefinition
! }ustification foi the 1$A !"#% methou of chaiacteiization
! Application of the exclusionaiy iule of penal law
! @".$( "Penal" in the conflict of laws is not the same as ciiminalconstitutional law - piovinces can enact
laws that aie eligible to be consiueieu penal laws - it is the state, oi someone on behalf of the state,
biinging an action
! Is this an exclusionaiy iule that you aie likely be able to invoke often successfully. - piobably not
! It is pietty cleai anu you have a pietty goou uefinition of what the foium consiueis to be penal
! Tiy applying this to anti-tiust actions:
! In the 0S, you can get tiiple uamages if you biing an action unuei anti-tiust legislation
! Is that a penal action.
! Woulu we enfoice that in Canaua.
T"10%; 90)0%' (6 4*%&1:) 3 .)&;%" GTAP /))
! It is a iecognition anu enfoicement of a foieign juugment case - except that theie is not ieally a foieign
juugment, it was a settlement agieement in Califoinia, but it was tieateu as binuing
! Baiuen oweu taxes in Califoinia state, he liveu in Biitish Columbia, the 0S tiieu to collect the taxes that
weie oweu
! The aigument by 0SA in SCC: this is a settlement - it is not ieally a iecognition anu enfoicement of a
juugment baseu on a foieign law, it is meiely a contact
! SCC uiun't buy it
! This case constitutes oui C51@69Q 31=5 on the ievenue law exception - at least foi the stiaightfoiwaiu
cases
90&1"2)* 3 ?/B(1' GTTO -^)-
! This case iepiesents the seconu categoiy of ievenue law cases, which is a little haiuei to justify
! Theie is a line of cases wheie sometimes the couits iecognize the exception anu sometimes they uon't
M134=
! The case involveu a lauy who was uomicileu anu iesiuent in Aiizona, anu she uieu
! This case aiose because she owneu piopeity outsiue of Aiizona, in Canaua (a faim in Albeita)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
6u
! Ns. Bubois uies testate (leaves a will)
! In this will, she leaves hei faim in Albeita to hei niece
! The faim is woith $4S1,uuu
! The executoi is the valley Bank of 0iegon anu because the faim constitutes immovable piopeity, letteis of
auministiation aie gianteu in Albeita - so the Albeita couits aie given juiisuiction to ueciue what happens
to the faim
! The total estate is woith $1.1 million
! Theie is estate tax uue - 0S estate tax
! This tax is paiu
! 0f the global amount of estate tax payable, $149,uuu is appoitioneu to the faim in Albeita
! So the executoi (valley Bank of 0iegon) pays the estate tax anu then seeks to be iepaiu
! 0nuei the will, the niece is the beneficiaiy of the faim anu she uoesn't want to have the faim beai any of
this estate tax
! So she applies foi an oiuei fiom the Albeita couit to uiiect the executoi to convey the faim to hei, cleai of
the taxes
! The executoi wants to sell the faim so he can get iepaiu foi the $149,uuu fiom the pioceeus of the faim
"==;5
! Question: the applicability of 0S law..
! Shoulu we oiuei the sale, oi shoulu we oiuei that the faim be conveyeu to the niece
U5C@
! In the enu, the AB couits says this is ievenue law, anu ueciueu to convey the faim to the niece, fiee anu
cleai of the taxes
! So the iest of the beneficiaiies hau to beai the full amount of the estate taxes
%51=8969Q
! This is an ABCA case, anu this is not the only answei the couit has evei given
! The couit cites the BCCA uecision
! So cleaily this was oiiginally tax, but it wasn't the state collecting, it was the executoi seeking
ieimbuisement fiom the estate - some couits aie sympathetic to such paities anu some aien't
! The ABCA was moie sympathetic to the beneficiaiy than it was to the executoiy (valley Bank of 0iegon)
! But you 5*' get a uiffeient iesult
K $06= 31=5 25J25=594= 405 4DJ631C =64;14689 69 _0630 405 25>59;5 C1_ 5B3C;=68912D 2;C5 6= ;=;1CCD
216=5@ m 64= 984 ;=;1CCD 216=5@ <531;=5 405 =4145 64=5CS 6= 42D69Q 48 38CC534 41B5= m 64 6= 216=5@ <531;=5
=8F5895 01= J16@ 41B5= 19@ 6= =55f69Q 256F<;2=5F594
9(:1%0- (6 K+(-;L' 3 M%1"=%& OaaG &#)-
! This is just pait of a collection of Lloyu's cases aiounu that time
! Najoi asbestus claim, majoi uisastei
! Lloyu's insuiance hau to pay up
! They call in theii investois to pay up
K $05 &941268 38;24= 01@ <559 1=f5@ <D 405 I569752= _08 _525 25=6@594 69 &941268 48 >86@ 40562
38942134 _640 .C8D@= 89 405 Q28;9@= 4014 40525 01@ <559 1 <25130 <D .C8D@j=g 19@ .C8D@j= 01@ 984
38FJC65@ _640 405 &941268 /53;26465= -34
! Bowevei, those investois hau liteially gone to Englanu to sign the contiacts anu the contiacts that hau
been enteieu into with Lloyu's - those contiacts all hau juiisuiction selecting clauses (*'+ <%8:2.$8 *#%8%'&
"2. "! .-%8 5"'.#*5. 8-*11 7$ -$*#< $A5128%;$1+ 7+ M'&1%8- 5"2#.8) anu choice of law clauses (1*, &";$#'%'&
.-$8$ 5"'.#*5.8 8-*11 7$ .-$ 1*, "! M'&1*'<) - so all connections weie with Englanu, incluuing the place
wheie the contiacts weie maue
! Anu yet Neinzei biought theii action in 0ntaiio
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
61
K /8 914;21CCDg .C8D@j= @5S59@5@ 89 405 Q28;9@= 4014g ,9QC19@ 6= 405 F825 1JJ28J26145 S82;F S82 405
134689 <531;=5 64 6= ,9QC6=0 C1_ 19@ 1CC 405 84052 389=6@5214689=g 19@ 40525 6= 1 Z;26=@634689
=5C53469Q 3C1;=5 19@ 4014 312265= 1 051>D _56Q04 69 &941268 k1= 64 @85= 69 ^)l
! So the 0ntaiio couits stayeu the 0ntaiio actions
! So they went off to Englanu anu the couits in Englanu saiu, eveiyone pays up fiist, anu then we'll soit out
the claims foi fiauu, etc. - but pay up fiist
! Lloyu's comes to 0ntaiio with its English juugment saying to 0ntaiio Neinzei asking it to pay up in full
K &941268 I569752 k@5S59@194= 69 405 134689l 12Q;5@ 4014 4014 Z;@QF594 _1= <1=5@ 89 1 C1_ 3894212D
48 S82;F J;<C63 J8C63D k405 S82;F J;<C63 J8C63D 6= 405 &941268 /53;26465= -34l m 405 ,9QC6=0
C5Q6=C14689 4014 _1= 25C5>194 69 405 134689 @6@9j4 01>5 =;30 1 J28>6=689 1= 405 &941268 /53;26465= -34
N/,)10 41&,)-' W(&$(&)01("O 3 !&)P1 41&,)-' W(O OaaO U.
! Beals with the public policy exception but it takes it to a slightly new level because it is uealing with
tensions between the Act of State uoctiine anu foium public policy
! @".$( Act of State uoctiine is an exclusion which has ieceiveu consiueiable attention in the English couits -
it uoes not come up veiy often in Canauian cases
M134=
! This case was tiiggeieu by political events
! Iiaq invaues Kuwait - which causeu ueoige Bush I to uiaw a line in the sanu
! What happens when Iiaq invaues Kuwait:
! Iiaq seizes 1u aiiplanes belonging to Kuwait Aiiways anu takes them to Iiaq
! Befoie it uoes that, it passes a law which puipoits to uissolve Kuwait Aiiways anu vest title to those
aiiplanes in Iiaqi Aiiways (this is a confiscatoiy law)
! Kuwait Aiiways eventually sues Iiaqi Aiiways in Englanu (a favouiite place foi such actions)
! Kuwait Aiiways sues in toit foi conveision
$05 .1_
! The English couits apply the English choice of law iule foi toit actions
! The English choice of law iule is the choice of law iule that }ustice La Foiest thiew out in 5(+(6'(" 3
7%"'%" GTTL /)) - oui choice of law iule now says Canauian couits apply the law of the place wheie
the toit occuiieu
! At the time this case was commenceu, Englanu still hau the olu, but mouifieu, uouble-baiiel choice of law
iule - English choice of law iule iequiieu 36>6C 1346891<6C64D both in the place wheie the toit occuiieu *'<
in the foium (it was a veiy naiiow iule)
! So now, the English couit is applying its uouble-baiiel choice of law iule: the toit of conveision is cleaily
actionable in Englanu, but what about KuwaitIiaq.
! In Iiaq, the law ienueieu the allegeu conveision not civilly actionable
! So if the English couit, applying its choice of law uouble-baiiel iule (iequiiing uouble actionability),
applies Iiaqi law, theie is no cause of action foi Kuwait Aiiways - 4014j= _0525 405 5B3C;=68912D 2;C5=
38F5 69
! The aigument is that the English couit shoulu uisiegaiu the application of the Iiaqi law confiscating the
aiiplanes anu vesting title to them in Iiaqi Aiiways - this is the pait of the Reasons foi }uugment that is
ielevant heie
"==;5
! So we have the English couit saying shoulu we uisiegaiu oui choice of law iule baseu on public policy.
%51=8969Q
! As a iesult, we get uiscussions about public policy (p. 74-7S of casebook - uefinition of the scope of public
policy)
! Two impoitant passages:
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
62
1. Blinu auheience to a foieign law can nevei be iequiieu of an English couit (can ieau in Canauian
couit). Exceptionally anu iaiely, a piovision of a foieign law will be uisiegaiueu when it woulu leau to
a iesult wholly alien to funuamental iequiiements of justice as auministeieu by an English (
Canauian) couit. A iesult of this chaiactei woulu not be acceptable to an English (Canauian) couit.
This public policy piinciple eluues moie piecise uefinition (p. 74).
2. When ueciuing an issue by iefeience to foieign law, the couits of this countiy 428. have a iesiuual
powei, to be exeiciseu $A5$:.%"'*11+ anu with the gieatest ciicumspection, to uisiegaiu a piovision in
the foieign law when to uo otheiwise woulu affiont basic piinciples of justice anu faiiness which the
couits seek to apply in the auministiation of justice in this countiy (p. 7S).
! The aigument is that, when you aie using this public policy exception, especially when theie is an act of
state involveu (which this was), it is limiteu to a bieach of human iights
! "uioss infiingements of human iights aie one instance, anu an impoitant instance, of such a piovision.
But the piinciple cannot be confineu to one paiticulai categoiy of unacceptable laws. That woulu be
neithei sensible noi logical. .1_= F1D <5 S;9@1F5941CCD ;91335J41<C5 S82 251=89= 84052 4019
0;F19 26Q04= >68C14689=!"
! Anu this was not a human iights violation, neveitheless "this seizuie anu assimilation weie flagiant
violations of iules of inteinational law of funuamental impoitance"
! So what the BL is uoing in this case is incluuing gioss violations of inteinational law as pait of its foium
public policy - they aie not going to stanu foi it
]<)0 ;(%' 0<1' :)'% );; 0( 0<% (0<%& :)'%`
! This case gives an extenueu uefinition of public policy - this is the stanuaiu to which Canauian couits
shoulu be auheiing to foi uefinition of public policy
T"10%; 90)0%' 3 !3%- GTTY &#/)
! This is a iecognition anu enfoicement action
! @".$: these exclusionaiy iules apply to choice of law *'< iecognition anu enfoicement actions (Kuwait
was a choice of law)
! The juugment which the 0S wants to have enfoiceu is a Nichigan juugment - a uefault juugment
! Ni. Ivey was uiiectoi of a coipoiation caiiying on business in Nichigan, he uiu not appeai, nobouy
uefenueu - it was a uefault juugment
! The juugment is foi uamages foi cost of iemeuiation - unuei the Ameiican statute known as CERCLA
(Compiehensive Enviionmental Response Compensation anu Liability Act) - pollutei-pays legislation
! Ni. Ivey is thiowing eveiy uefence he can come up with to iecognition anu enfoicement of this Nichigan
juugment in 0ntaiio couits
! Be uses all exclusionaiy iules: penal law, ievenue aigument, othei public law aigument, contiaiy to foium
public policy, bieach of natuial justice
! Be uoesn't succeeu - CA shoots them all uown
%51=8969Q
! CA is taking the 1$A !"#% appioach, especially with iespect to the ievenue law aigument - he is saying, we
uon't caie what anybouy else says about the piopei chaiacteiization of CERCLA as penal oi ievenue - it is
not, anu we aie ueciuing it's not because we aie ueciuing (the foium)
! The only ieason to ieau this case: the talk about the public law exception - the mysteiy categoiy
! Couit uoesn't auu anything to what we have uiscusseu ie: penalievenuepublic policy
! M62=4 J8694: Shaip }. acknowleuges that the public law exception <"$8 exist (anu it -*8 been applieu in
subsequent English cases)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
6S
! The mysteiy pait is what is it. What uoes it consist of. Bow uo we uefine public laws.
! Shaip } uiscusses the cases in which the public law exception has been iaiseu
! But he uoesn't pioviue us with any Canauian uefinition of the public law categoiy of foieign laws foi
puiposes of the exclusionaiy iules
! Be uoes say that CERCLA uoesn't fall into it
! But he uoesn't pioviue us with a uefinition of the public law exception
V(3%&"*%"0 (6 !'+)*1: C%$/B+1: (6 !&)" 3 >)&)U)0 V)++%&1%' OaaO (])-
! Question was whethei Iian hau stanuing in the 0K to maintain an action foi conveision against Baiakat
ualleiies in iespect of ceitain antiquities uating allegeuly fiom Suuu BC
! Baiakat ualleiies says, we puichaseu them in Fiance, Switzeilanu - we have title to them
! Iian's aigument, which uoes succeeu, is that by law, piopeity in those items is vesteu in the State
! The couit says theie aie many ciiminal penalties in the statutes (on which they hau expeit eviuence) but
the fact that the statute incluues piovisions with ciiminal penalties uoesn't mean the statute is entiiely
ciiminal law - this paiticulai piovision vesting title in Iian is not ciiminal, it is a title piovision, it is not
penal
! But is it public law. - this leaus to a long uiscussion
! The ultimate answei was: this is just Iian claiming peisonal owneiship iights of the soveieign - that's
what the law gave them: owneiship
! So the contiast is between piivate owneiship iights in antiquities anu soveieign iights - anu the analysis
of the CA of the law as piesenteu was, this was a piivate claim, not a soveieign claim
F&%'1;%"0 (6 GP/)0(&1)+ V/1"%) 3O K(2( K0;O OaaA (]
! This is a toit action biought in Englanu - possibly foi stiange ieasons
! The claims weie against a coipoiation in Englanu
! The claims weie foi conspiiacy, intentional infliction of haim by unlawful means, foi assault
! The uamages claimeu weie foi the costs involveu in putting uown the coup attempt, cost of feeuing
piisoneis, cost of foou foi suspecteu membeis, cost of meuical tieatment, etc. anu uamages foi emotional
uistiess causeu to the Piesiuent of Equatoiial uuinea foi feai of his family anu his peisonal safety
! Is this a claim that can pioceeu. 0i is this baseu on some public law.
! Public law anu act of state aie both ielevant
! The English couit ueciues it is a public law exception - not going to allow these toit claims to pioceeu
! Because all of those costs in attempts to put uown the coup weie an exeicise of soveieign authoiity - this
is what Piesiuents in Afiica have to uo
! This is a soveieign act, you can't come to Englanu anu get an injunction to stop them fiom tiying to
engineei a coup, anu you can't come to Englanu to ask foi costs foi uamages foi putting uown a coup
attempt - that is soveieign, that is public
! So this is one example of a case in which the public law exception was applieu
'8F636C5 19@ %5=6@5935
42/+1)" 3 W-2)"1U OaaA (]
! }uiisuiction case
! Ni. Agulian uieu in englanu wheie he hau iesiueu most of the time foi 4S yeais
! Be left a will - this is a succession case
! The will uiviueu up his estate - 6.S million pounus - mostly between 2 uaughteis anu a gianuuaughtei
! But he hau in his last 2-S yeais of his life, a paitnei, she saiu he piomiseu to maiiy hei (the couit accepts
this) - he left hei SuK - she is not happy
! She makes an application in Englanu unuei the statute equivalent to oui Wills vaiiation Act
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
64
! The testatoi's will is challengeu anu a wannabe beneficiaiy says give me moie - couit has to ueciue
whethei to uo it oi not
! The English couit says, application of this English statute is only available if the ueceaseu uieu uomicileu in
Englanu
! Ni. Agulian, his uomicile at the moment of his ueath becomes the main issue in the case
! The CA ueciues that he uiu not acquiie a uomicile of choice in Englanu
! Be hau nevei lost his uomicile of oiigin in Cypiess by means of an acquisition of a uomicile of choice in
Englanu
! The CA says (paia S1):
! You uon't just consiuei the moment in time that is ciitical (uomicile at the moment of ueath)
! You have to consiuei the whole life of the inuiviuual - what's his pattein.
! Is it possible he coulu have intenueu to acquiie uomicile in Englanu.
! This case sets out what the state of the minu necessaiy is anu to a ceitain extent gives you an iuea of the
scope of the investigation
C% T&P/<)&0 G'0)0% GTTa U)
! Also ueals with acquisition of a uomicile of choice conceining a ueceaseu inuiviuual who (even moie than
Ni. Agulian) seemeu to be incapable of settling uown anywheie
! Be has a uomicile of oiigin in New Zealanu, he acquiies uomicile of choice in New Zealanu, gets maiiieu
theie
! Then, when maiiiage #1 bieaks up, he leaves New Zealanu
! Be comes to 0ntaiio, acquiies anothei wife anu a son - then they sepaiate
! Then he keeps moving aiounu
! Then he has anothei paitnei
K U5 C6>5= 69 >1268;= JC135= <5S825 05 @65=: V1=069Q489 ')g X;5<53g &941268g MC826@1g _1= 89 06= _1D
48 #`)
! Wheie is he uomicileu at the uate of his ueath.
! Biu he acquiie a uomicile of choice in: New Zealanu, 0ntaiio, Quebec, Floiiua oi New Yoik City
! Since he haun't actually moveu to NYC yet, they wipe that option off - that leaves NZ, 0N, QC, FL
K $DJ631CCDg D8; Q54 5>6@5935 Q6>59 <D >1268;= J58JC5 19@ D8; Q54 S134= 1<8;4 06= C6S5 m D8; 1=f: @6@ 05
S82F 19 694594689 48 25=6@5 69@5i69645CD 19D_0525d
! Be hau ieal piopeity in QC
! Bis auuiess in 0N consisteu of a ioom in a buuuy's house, which he useu foi tax puiposes, uiiveis licence
puiposes, etc. - it seemeu to be that the only stable element in his veiy pathetic life
! Question is: whethei his last paitnei oi his son gets the estate
! Couit finus that his uomicile of choice was 0ntaiio - so he uies uomicileu in 0ntaiio even though he wasn't
physically theie
@)01(")+ 5&/'0 W(*$)"- K0;O 3 GB&( GTYL U)
! Beals with the uomicile of a coipoiation
! Easy to uefine
! All you get is basically that: the uefinition foi the uomicile of a coipoiation
! Is the juiisuiction in which it is incoipoiateu
! Nost often useu foi choice of law puiposes, but can be useu foi juiisuiction
! If the conflicts issue in a case is what law goveins the inteinal oiganization of the coipoiation, law of the
coipoiation's uomicile - the law of the place wheie it is incoipoiateu
4;;%&'(" 3 4;;%&'(" GTER -^)-
! The ABCA is tiying to ueteimine the last joint habitual iesiuence of the husbanu anu wife foi puiposes
of juiisuiction on the application of a piovincial statute
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
6S
! Talks about the quality of the iesiuence
! So length of time is impoitant but not conclusive - it is the quality of iesiuence (unless you have
something like the =%;"#5$ 35. that says you have to be living togethei foi a ceitain peiiou of time)
! The couits emphasize that oiuinaiy anu habitual iesiuence (they uo seem to be inteichangeable) is
the =544C5@ J;2J8=5 of the inuiviuual whose iesiuence is in issue
! >WW4 uealing with habitual iesiuence foi puiposes of ueteimining custouy issue
! CA says theie must be a uegiee of settleu puipose
! Auopts extiact fiom English case: "The puipose may be one oi it may be seveial, it may be specific oi
geneial, all that the law iequiies is that theie is a settleu puipose - this is not to say that the
pioposotist intenus to stay wheie he is inuefinitely |that's uomicile, we uon't neeu to go theiej. Inueeu
this puipose, while settleu, may be foi a limiteu peiiou. Euucation, business oi piofession,
employment, health, family oi meiely love of the place spiing to minu as common ieasons foi choice
of iegulai aboue anu theie may well be many otheis. All that is necessaiy is that the puipose of living
in wheie one uoes has a sufficient uegiee of continuity to be piopeily uesciibeu as settleu."
H(%"/'")$"&#: "# ?,%/&#-I -)$"&#/
H;26=@634689: H;26=@634689 /6FJC636452 19@ $522648261C )8FJ545935
M)<)&)"1 (6 >)&(;) 3O ]1+;%"'0%1" GTRO (]
! This is a puie English common law case - it is piobably still the law in all common law non-C}PTA
juiisuictions in Canaua
! It ueals with the olu common law seivice as of iight within the juiisuiction iule
M134=
! Nahaiani was a veiy wealthy woman, she hau piopeity in Englanu, Fiance, etc. - CA calls hei a citizen of
the woilu
! The uefenuant, Ni. Wiluenstein lives in Fiance, wheie he iuns a majoi ait galleiy
! Nahaiani puichases a painting fiom Ni. Wiluenstein guaianteeu to be genuineoiiginal
! She takes ueliveiy of the painting in Paiis - so place of sale is in Paiis, to someone in Paiis by a Fiench
iesiuent
! Nahaiani biings the painting to Englanu, she takes it to an auction house but it uoesn't sell
! So she takes it to Chiistie's, wheie someone looks at it anu says, we uon't think it's genuine
! Nahaiani issues a wiit against Ni. Wiluenstein in Englanu - the wiit gets issueu but uoesn't immeuiately
get seiveu
! The uefenuant comes ovei to Englanu foi some iaces
! Be gets seiveu - he is seiveu in Englanu
! X;5=4689 S82 )- k25 Z;26=@634689l: Befenuant aigues that the English couit uoesn't have juiisuiction but
the English CA says we uo - it was a valiu seivice of the wiit
! Then the uefenuant went on to aigue !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8 but coulun't satisfy the abuse of piocess test
K -4 38FF89 C1_g F525 45FJ8212D J0D=631C J25=5935 6= =;Si636594 m 4014j= Q88@ =52>635g D8; 01>5
=146=i65@ 405 2;C5= m 40525 *12<0 <5 19 5B35J4689 48 406=: 6S D8; _525 48 01>5 C;25@ 405 @5S59@194
6948 405 Z;26=@634689 <D 4263f52D
K $06= 6= Q88@ C1_ 69 &941268g 543! <;4 #&$ -#`I&%, "# ^)ooo
M(&2/)&; !"3%'0*%"0' K0; 3 ?% 9)3(-% GTTa /))
! Lanumaik Canauian case - oiiginateu in BC
! BC couits weie askeu to iecognize anu enfoice a juugment oiiginating in Albeita
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
66
! BC couits weie at that point in time still stiaight common law - unauulteiateu by SCC (the ?"#&2*#< case)
- we hau iecognition iules which limiteu the BC couits to iecognition of only those juugments in which the
uefenuant was actually seiveu in the juiisuiction wheie the juugment emanates fiom 82 hau somehow
otheiwise submitteu to the juiisuiction of that couit
! BC - the iecognizing couit
! AB - oiiginating couit
! X;5=4689 S82 ^) 38;24=: can we iecognize anu enfoice this AB juugment.
M134=
! The litigation in Albeita was a moitgage uefault case
! The lanu was in Albeita; at the time when the uefenuants became guaiantois, they weie iesiuent
(piobably uomicileu, but we uon't caie) in Albeita - so, oiiginally all the connections weie with Albeita
anu the Albeita couits took juiisuiction
! Whats the pioblem. - the uefenuants hau moveu to BC befoie the AB action was commenceu - they weie
seiveu with AB piocess $AdH2#%8 in BC
! So the uefenuants ieceiveu piocess, they knew theie was an action against them anu they got goou legal
auvice, which was: "You weien't seiveu in Albeita, uon't submit. }ust stay in BC anu uo N0TBINu"
! Those weie the common-law iules: the BC couit won't iecognize the AB juugment - theie was no piesence
at the time when the action was commenceu, anu theie was no submission
! The uefenuants shoulu have been home-fiee (at least outsiue of Albeita - the juugment woulu have been
enfoiceable theie but no othei common-law piovince woulu iecognize anu enfoice that juugment)
! The case goes to SCC
! BC has a ieputation foi piouucing cases that go to SCC
! In BC, the couit hau fliiteu with the iuea of iecipiocity - anu this was aigueu at the SCC
! BC woulu have taken juiisuiction in similai ciicumstances so we ought to iecognize the Albeita
juugment
! SCC uiu not accept that aigument
K "9=451@g 405D 31F5 ;J _640 1 95_ 1JJ28130 48 2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 k1 95_ )191@619
38FF89 C1_ 2;C5l 19@ 1= 1 3828CC12D 48 4014 2;C5g 64 31F5 ;J _640 1 95_ Z;26=@634689 2;C5 m 1 95_
1JJ28130 48 Z;26=@634689
! Theie is a long uiscussion by La Foiest } of comity, feueialism, anu the Constitution, etc., anu finally comes
uown to conflicts
! )8F64D (uefeience; the goveiningopeiating piinciple foi cieation of conflicts: we uo it because we
think it is the iight thing to uo; it has to uo with iespect foi othei soveieign states anu theii legal
systems)
! M5@521C6=F is a veiy special application of comity - it's comity between piovinces
! What's implicit in feueialism. - Feueialism means 82@52 19@ S16295==
! But what uoes oiuei anu faiiness mean in the context of conflicts, iecognition anu enfoicement. Be
says oiuei anu faiiness in a feueial system iequiies that the units (piovinces) in a feueial system give
full S1640 19@ 325@64 to juugments emanating in othei units in the feueial system
! Boes this mean we have to iecognize any juugment fiom anothei piovince. - No, theie has to be some
constiaints - these constiaints have to be at the juiisuiction enu
! Theie must have been @;5 J2835== in the oiiginating couit - what uoes uue piocess entail. - uue
piocess iequiies that juiisuiction be piopeily anu appiopiiately iestiaineu
! When can we say juiisuiction has been piopeity anu appiopiiately iestiaineu - when theie is a
ieal anu substantial connection
! But what is it that theie has to be a ieal anu substantial connection with. - The paities. The
action. - we now say it has to be between the action anu the piovince (but this uiun't come fiom
?"#&2*#<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
67
! 9( ,<%&% )&% ,%` In Canaua, oui juiisuictional iules have been mouifieu: We have a Constitutional
stanuaiu against which all juiisuictional iules (#$*<( C}PTA - ciicumstances in which you can seive a wiit
$AdH2#%8) shoulucan be measuieu. The minimum constitutional iequiiement foi a juiisuictional iule
peimitting a plaintiff seive theii wiit $AdH2#%8 is that the ciicumstances be such that theie be a ieal anu
substantial connection between the action anu the piovince
! In the couise of his juugment in ?"#&2*#<, La Foiest } talkeu about common law uefences anu !"#24 '"'d
5"';$'%$'8 anu he also saiu (anu this causeu to shake oui heaus a little bit) the tiauitional iules continue
! Boes this mean that meie piesence foi juiisuictional oi iecognition anu enfoicement puiposes a ieal
anu substantial connection.
! This case appaiently expiessly leaves the Nahaiani iule intact - meie tempoiaiy piesence is sufficient foi
juiisuiction
! In BC, we ueciueu to go with the logic of ?"#&2*#<> not with the expiess woius - so when you look at the
C}PTA, meie piesence in the piovince B0ES N0T constitute juiisuiction
! What is iequiieu now is oiuinaiy iesiuence of the uefenuant (but that is a statutoiy change - it just maue
it naiiowei, which is fine)
! M82 D512=g _5 01@ 98 6@51 08_ 46Q04 405 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 01@ 48 <5 m F696F1C 82
F1B6F1Cd "4 6= 98_ =824 8S =82469Q 64=5CS 8;4 m 64 6= 14 405 F696F1C 59@ 8S 405 =J5342;F
! "4 @85=9j4 41f5 F;30 8S 1 3899534689 48 389=464;45 1 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 S82 J;2J8=5= 8S
Z;26=@634689
K `8; 319 41f5 406= J28J8=64689 1= 5=41<C6=05@ <D 405 31=5= =6935 M(&2/)&;: 8;2 38FF89 C1_
Z;26=@6346891C 2;C5= 125 >52D _6@5! V5 1CC8_ JC16946SS= 48 =52>5 J2835== %H A/&1' 69 19 5B42182@6912D
<281@ 219Q5 8S 3623;F=41935= m 405 Z;26=@634689 C1_= 125 >52D <281@ k36>6C C1_ 2;C5= 459@ 48 <5
46Q0452l! ^;4 4059 _5 ;=5 @6=3254689 48 91228_ 4069Q= @8_9 m =8 @6=3254689 6= 1 >52D 6FJ824194
5C5F594!
M(&)" 3 F-+% @)01(")+ IW)");)J K0; GTRP /))
K +6>5= ;= 405 1JJ28130 kF825 4019 405 2;C5l S82 @536@69Q _0525 1 4824 01= <559 38FF6445@ m D8; 319
;=5 405 C8314689 8S 405 4824 82 D8; 319 41Cf 1<8;4 405 '10/' 8S 405 4824 k_0525 69 C1_ @6@ 405 4824
833;2l
! When you have a cai acciuent, it's easy
! When you have othei kinus of toits, ex. piouuct liability, uefamation - wheie you have components of the
toit occuiiing in uiffeient juiisuictions - saying the toit was committeu in a paiticulai juiisuiction is a
little haiuei
! Foi puiposes of juiisuiction only, conceivably, the toit coulu be consiueieu to have occuiieu in moie than
one juiisuiction - the common law juiisuictional iules aie not piemiseu on having a single location
juiisuiction foi eveiy cause of action - theie is no such thing as exclusive juiisuiction in %' :$#8"'*4
actions
! Foi choice of law puiposes, its a bit moie uifficult because we have to locate the toit foi puiposes of
ueciuing what law applies - so the choice of law iule is piemiseu on having a single locationsitus of the
toit
! }uiisuiction is a little moie elusive
! In this case, Bickson } is cleaily expiessing a juiisuictional iule oi appioach (not uoing choice of law heie,
we'ie just ueciuing whethei the couit has juiisuiction to heai this action
M134=
! Pyle National manufactuies a lightbulb in 0ntaiio with component paits fiom vaiious places
! The lightbulbs get uistiibuteu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
68
! A lightbulb manufactuieu by Pyle National gets puichaseu in Saskatchewan
! Ni. Noian is stanuing on a steel lauuei, gets electiocuteu anu uies
! Bis wiuow wants to biing an action in SK against Pyle National - an $A H2#%8 uefenuant, a uefenuant with
absolutely no piesence in SK
! In SK at that time: the Queen's Bench Act s. S4, pioviues: Notwithstanuing anything in Section SS, no action
shall be biought in Saskatchewan foi uamages in iespect of a toit committeu outsiue the piovince except
by special leave of the Couit oi a juuge.
! The SK couit gave hei leave
U5C@
! The case goes up to SCC - the SCC says SK uiun't neeu to give leave because applying oui new flexible
appioach, the toit was committeu in SK
%51=8969Q
! Two ieasons to locate the toit in SK:
1. The cause of action is founueu on the Fatal Acciuents Act - this Act gives a cause of action to the
wiuow to sue the uefenuant
! Bickson } is conceineu that Nis. Wiuow will not be able to make a claim unuei the SK statute
unless he finus that the toit was committeu in SK - he is conceineu about extia-teiiitoiiality
! What he is saying is: I uon't think the piovince has legislative juiisuiction to give a cause of action
foi a ueath occuiiing anywheie just because the claimant is heie in SK (it is teiiitoiially limiteu)
! So he has got to finu, foi Noian's sake, that the toit was committeu in SK
! She uoesn't neeu a cause of action, she has been given leave to seive the uefenuant - so the action
is pioceeuable
! The question is, uoes she have any law she can invoke, i.e. the SK statute
! So it maue a uiffeience to hei cause of action, not to the litigation
! So having himself up that way, iight at the beginning, he goes on to uiscuss all the uiffeient
appioaches to the pioblem of locating toits
! Theie aie S main appioaches:
1. Place of acting theoiy - if you use this iule heie: the toit cleaily occuiieu in 0ntaiio because
that's wheie the lightbulb was piouuceu
2. Place of haim
S. Last necessaiy act theoiy - the place wheie the last necessaiy element of the toit occuiieu
! Bickson thiows all of these out anu auopts what he thinks is a flexible iule:
! "ueneially speaking, in ueteimining wheie a toit has been committeu, it is unnecessaiy, anu unwise, to
have iesoit to any aibitiaiy set of iules.. Cheshiie has suggesteu . that it woulu not be inappiopiiate
to iegaiu a toit as having occuiieu in any countiy substantially affecteu by the uefenuant's activities
oi its consequences anu the law of which is likely to have been in the ieasonable contemplation of the
paities."
! Applying this test to a case of caieless manufactuie, the following iule can be foimulateu: wheie a
foieign uefenuant caielessly manufactuies a piouuct in a foieign juiisuiction which enteis into the
noimal channels of tiaue anu he knows oi ought to know both that as a iesult of his caielessness a
consumei may well be injuieu anu it is ieasonably foieseeable that the piouuct woulu be useu oi
consumeu wheie the plaintiff useu oi consumeu it, then the foium in which the plaintiff suffeieu
uamage is entitleu to exeicise juuicial juiisuiction ovei that foieign uefenuant.
! i.e. If the manufactuiei coulu have foieseen that his piouuct woulu enu up in SK, then the toit was
committeu in SK - anu he's piemiseu all this on on the iuea that, he uoesn't think the manufactuiing
by itself is a toit, you neeu uamage occuiiing (it's soit of like a last necessaiy act) but it's moie flexible
because he is not insisting that the only place the toit was committeu was in the juiisuiction wheie the
uamage occuiieu but cleaily, anticipating what subsequent couits willhave saiu, @1F1Q5 6=
J28<1<CD 405 F8=4 6FJ824194 38FJ89594
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
69
! Anu ceitainly, leaving asiue the ?"#&2*#< issues, BC couits took this case anu just ian with it - the uamage
occuiieu heie, that is enough
! So this case is constantly useu in Canaua because it is flexible
! So we have the flexible appioach, no aibitiaiy iules, no concept (expiess oi implicit) that foi juiisuictional
puiposes, theie is only one place that the toit coulu have been committeu
! So it openeu up 'O Y[I2J anu its equivalent in othei piovinces - this is impoitant
! Chionologically, we get the 0NCA uecision in ?2852.. ; 0"2#5$11$8 2uu2 0NCA - one of S peisonal injuiy
cases that weie consoliuateu to go to 0NCA anu the leau case was Nuscutt
M/':/00 3 W(/&:%++%' OaaO &#)-
M134=
! Cai acciuent occuiieu in AB wheie the plaintiff hau S weeks befoie he moveu foi woik
! Be is seiiously injuieu, he comes home to 0ntaiio
! Be is actually in 0ntaiio, he wants to biing an action in 0ntaiio
! 0N at this point in time (2uu2) hau Rule 17 - in 0N they hau taken the logic of b+1$ @*.%"'*1 anu they uiu
have a "toit committeu in 0N" iule, anu they hau elaboiateu on it in a sepaiate iule, which was "uamage
occuiiing in 0N" fiom vaiious causes of action
! That's basically what we hau uone in BC - it was the uamage component foi toit being committeu in BC
! The pioblem with the use of that paiticulai iule of couit, "uamage occuiiing in 0N", was that the plaintiff
ielieu not so much on uamage occuiiing oiiginally in 0N, but uamage occuiiing somewheie else anu then
iecoveiingtieatment continuing in 0N - anu that was happening in this case
%51=8969Q
! Shaip } (wiiting foi a unanimous CA) is uoing his best to give effect to Noiguaiu
! Be iecognizes upfiont anu expiessly that "ieal anu substantial connection" foi puiposes of juiisuiction
is ) ieal anu substantial connection wheieas the connection foi puiposes of uiscietion is 0<% most
appiopiiate juiisuiction0<% most ieal anu substantial connection
! Be states that La Foiest } in Noiguaiu %'.$'<$< ieal anu substantial connection to be a iC5B6<C5 45=4
! But then, he goes on to set out 8 consiueiations that a couit ought to take into account in establishing
whethei theie is ) ieal anu substantial connection foi puiposes of H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#
! The 8 Factois:
1. The connection between the foium anu the plaintiff's claim
2. The connection between the foium anu the uefenuant
S. 0nfaiiness to the uefenuant in assuming juiisuiction
4. 0nfaiiness to the plaintiff in not assuming juiisuiction
S. The involvement of othei paities to the suit
6. The couit's willingness to iecognize anu enfoice an extia-piovincial juugment ienueieu on the same
juiisuictional basis - .-%8 "'$ ,*8 * 1". "! !2'
7. Whethei the case is inteipiovincial oi inteinational in natuie
8. Comity anu the stanuaius of juiisuiction, iecognition anu enfoicement pievailing elsewheie
! EE's complaint: it 8*+8 H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# anu uiscietion aie uistinct components but then he cieates a
test foi H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# which oveilaps significantly with the factois you consiuei when you aie
exeicising uiscietion
! This 8 factois weie useu ieligiously in 0N - counsels anu juuges love checklists
! This test is fine - if 0N wants to move fiom a minimal connection to a maximal connection foi H2#%8<%5.%"'
8%4:1%5%.$#, that's theii business
u ?"#&2*#< set a constitutional minimum - you have to have at least this foi youi iule to be intia viies - if
piovinces want to tighten theii H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# iules, that's fine - anu that's what ?285".. uiu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
7u
u So this case is at the maximal enu of the spectium - you neeu to satisfy a lot of conceins in oiuei to
peisuaue an 0N couit to take juiisuiction
u The consequence of having such a high stanuaiu foi H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# is that by the time you got to
uiscietion(.), you nevei stayeu the 0N action because you hau satisfieu all the conceins that woulu come
up in !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8 - you woulu have no uiscietion left because you hau exeiciseu it all in
H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#
! BC uoesn't caie - we can go oui own way
9$)& 4%&('$):% K0; 3 M(B1+% 9)0%++10% W(&$(&)01(" OaaO /))
%51=8969Q
! SCC finus that fiist of all, it was not necessaiy - we uon't neeu to consiuei ieal anu substantial connection
as a extia oi auuitional ciiteiion (satisfaction of 4&0O QYcZ (6 0<% W131+ W(;% (6 k/lB%: IWWkJ is sufficient)
- no neeu to go to ieal anu substantial connection - (.)
! But LeBell } says, even if you uo consiuei a ieal anu substantial connection as set out in ?"#&2*#<
inuepenuently anu sepaiately of Ait. S148 - it uiun't mattei heie - uamage occuiiing in Quebec satisfies
the ieal anu substantial connection
! The couit went on to say: theie is no minimum amount of uamage iequiieu foi ieal anu substantial
connection - $SuK is okay
K /8g 5B421J8C1469Q S28F 406= 31=5 19@ 64= 389=6@5214689 8S 405 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689g ,,
=1D= 4014 405 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 1= 59;936145@ 69 M(&2/)&; 25h;625= 89CD 1 F696F1C
3899534689 m D8; @89j4 01>5 48 Q8 1= S12 1= M/':/00g 405 F696F1C 3899534689 6= =;Si636594
! LeBell }'s juugment uoes contain some ouu things: he says you ieau the Coue (CCQ) as a whole - that is,
H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# (Ait. S148) as mouifieu by Ait. S1SS (the uiscietionaiy piovision, !"#24 '"'d
5"';$'%$'8) - the system of piivate inteinational law is uesigneu to ensuie that theie is a "ieal anu
substantial connection" between the action anu the piovince of Quebec anu to guaiu against the impiopei
seizing of juiisuiction
! We might say this is inconsistent with the minimal connection because it uoes iequiie a closei connection
to exeicise juiisuiction - you tighten things up when you exeicise uiscietion - but iegaiuless, EE is
ignoiing this
! The SCC uiu 984 say that to satisfy the ieal anu substantial connection - 6= 389=6@525@ Z;=4 <D 64=5CS S82
Z;26=@634689 J;2J8=5= kdl - you have to go as fai as ?2852.. uiu
! Anu the SCC 5"21< have enuoiseu anu appioveu ?2852.. if was ueciueu fiist - anu this was a notable
omission
! @".$( Theie was no aigument that the uamage hau been suffeieu at the heau office anu not at the bianch
plant in Quebec - so a coipoiation can suffei uamage in multiple locations appaiently
W(/0/ 3 V)/0<1%& OaaA #^)-
M134=
! NvA (single vehicle acciuent) in 0ntaiio - cleaily easy to locate (not like piouuct liability)
! The uiivei, uauthiei is a QB iesiuent
! The passengei, Coutu is a NB iesiuent
! They weie tempoiaiily in 0N, but they weie both going back to QB anu NB iespectively
! Coutu was killeu in the acciuent
! So you now have the wiuow suing in NB, hei home piovince foi uamages aiising fiom the ueath of hei
husbanu, the passengei in the cai
! Theie is no question about liability, it's just a question of uamages
! Theie aie objections iaiseu by uauthiei to the juiisuiction of the NB couits
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
71
U5C@ k$Hl
! The T} hau iuleu on the juiisuiction of the NB couit having consiueieu both H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# anu
uiscietion (!"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8)
! The T} hau founu that the NB couit uiu have juiisuiction
"==;5
! An issue aiises because the T} hau useu the Nuscutt appioach foi juiisuiction anu consiueieu the 8
consiueiations set out by Shaip }. in Nuscott
U5C@ k)-l
! Agiees with the iesult, but uoesn't like how T} got theie because he useu Nuscutt anu we uon't want
Nuscutt applying in this piovince
! The point is not that NBCA iejects Nuscutt foi NB puiposes (although that is inteiesting) - the ieason why
this case is a useful case foi us to consiuei is because it consiueis ,-+ Nuscutt shoulun't be useu
%51=8969Q
! Why shoulun't Nuscutt be useu. - because we neeu some ceitainty in ueciuing on juiisuiction
! Plaintiffs neeu to know wheie they can sue
! You neeu to be able to say well we can aigue that the toit occuiieu heie, oi the contiact was bieacheu heie
! We neeu this kinu of ceitainty
! You uo not neeu the unceitainty of consiueiing comity of the juiisuiction state, oi consiueiing faiiness
K /8 405 #^)- i69@= 4014 40525 6= 19 8>52C1J <54_559 405 Z;26=@6346891C 38FJ89594 kA/&1';1:01("
'1*$+1:10%&l 19@ @6=3254689 k6(&/* "("X:("3%"1%"'l m 40525 6= 488 F;30 ;935241694D 69 1JJCD69Q 405
I;=3;44 32645261g =8 _5 _6CC Z;=4 Q8 <13f 48 1JJCD69Q 405 i62=4 8S 405 I;=3;44 32645261 19@ S83;= 89 pG
19@ pG 6= 405 3899534689 <54_559 405 134689 19@ 405 J28>6935 m _0630 6= _014 8;2 %;C5= S83;= 89 m
405 S134;1C 3899534689
! Be says: the uiivei shoulu have foieseen (in the couise of being negligent on the ioau) that if he killeu his
passengei, theie woulu be suffeiing in the passengei's home piovince of NB
! Also consiueis the costs of not knowing wheie to biing an action - how many pooi little wiuows have the
financial iesouices to biing an action in S uiffeient piovinces (:"1%5+ 5"'8%<$#*.%"')
! Note: you nevei know how the couit will exeicise its uiscietion - it's a bit of a lotteiy
! Even if the piovince takes juiisuiction unuei the H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#teiiitoiial competence iule,
the uefenuant can still say, theie is a 4"#$ impoitant foium in anothei juiisuiction
! You still have this unceitainty but at least you have ceitainty in teims of wheie you can stait the action
90)",)- 3 ]-%0< F<)&*):%/01:)+' !": OaaT ^))-
! This is a post-C}PTA case
! It is absolute cleai that Nuscutt uoesn't apply in BC - theie is not much justification foi it, theie is simply
the invocation of the fact that now we've got a statute
! Although that uoesn't mean much because some piovinces have have enacteu a C}PTA but still
consiuei Nuscutt factois - have incoipoiateu Nuscutt into C}PTA
! Pie-C}PTA, we hau been using consistently using minimal connection as the stanuaiu foi ieal anu
substantial connection
! Stanway is a class action
! Plaintiff is a BC iesiuent anu claims to have uevelopeu bieast cancei aftei taking meuication manufactuieu
by the uefenuant
! The uefenuants aie all Ameiican coipoiations - no BC coipoiations involveu
! The cause of action is toit, negligence, etc.
! The Ameiican companies objecteu to the teiiitoiial competence of the BC couit
! BCCA affiims BCSC which holus that we have teiiitoiial competence unuei the C}PTA s. S(e)
! But BCSC applieu the Nuscutt ciiteiia (.)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
72
! BCCA says No, Nuscutt uoes not apply heie (.)
! But they simply say in paia 21-22
! The C}PTA has eclipseu that appioach (Nuscutt appioach.) anu piospectively, C}PTA s. 1u sets out the
ciicumstances anu these aie to be consiueieu manuatoiy piesumptions - but they aie iebuttable, they
can be iebuttable
! But the fact is the BC couits see this as a slam uunk - if you set out the conuitions in C}PTA s. 1u, we've
got juiisuiction
! It is likely to be ueteiminative
! The ciicumstances ielieu on in this case was s. 1u(g) - a toit committeu in the piovince
! Why was the toit committeu in the piovince. - Noian v Pyle National is applieu: uamage was suffeieu
heie, consumeis weie locateu heie, etc., so we have juiisuiction
mW+/B C%'(&0' 3 \)" >&%;) OaGO /))q
! The most iecent SCC case
! In teims of what it actually ueciueu, no haim uone
! In teims of the uiscussion, LeBell } (who wiote Spai Aeiospace wiites this juugment too) wiites as if the
Quebec Civil Coue inventeu the concept of H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# - (.)
! Comes fiom 0NCA
! van Bieua ie-aigues the Nuscutt appioach
! van Bieua is the consoliuation of two toit cases
! Peisonal injuiies weie suffeieu by 2 sets of 0ntaiio iesiuents in Cuba
! Fiist paii was a couple (Ni. anu Nis. Chaiion) who went scuba uiving
! Ni. Chaiion uiowneu
! Seconu paii (Ni. anu Nis. van Bieua) unueitake to teach tennis in Cuba at a iesoit in exchange foi fiee
accommouation
! They go to the beach iight aftei aiiiving, Ns. van Bieua uoes chin-ups on some equipment on the
beach, the equipment collapses on hei anu she is ienueieu a paiaplegic
! The van Bieuas ietuin to Albeita (wheie Ns. van Bieua's paients aie anu then they move to BC)
! They begin theii litigation in 0N but they aie actually in BC
! Both wanteu to sue the Cuban uefenuants in 0ntaiio
! They commenceu sepaiate actions (which aie consoliuateu) in 0ntaiio anu they seive the Cuban
uefenuants $A H2#%8 in Cuba
! They point to seveial connecting factois:
! They aie claiming uamage in 0ntaiio, contiact was maue in 0ntaiio
! The Cuban uefenuants uisputeu the juiisuiction of the 0ntaiio couits
! The Cubans lose at tiial
! CA: at this point in time, the goveining appioach to H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# in 0ntaiio was Nuscutt, which
iequiies counsel to speak to 8 uiffeient factoisciiteiia
! The paities in the van Bieua case uisagiee with that appioach
! If you want the CA to oveiiule a pievious CA uecision, they neeu a laigei panel - so they ask foi a
panel of S (Nuscutt was wiitten by a panel of S) anu they got a panel of S
! Funny enough, one of the membeis of the panel was Shaip } (who wiote the Nuscutt uecision)
! All soits of aiguments weie put foith
! Shaip } is somewhat peisuaueu - what uoes he uo in the 0NCA in van Bieua:
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
7S
! Be looks at all the ciiticisms anu he ueciues that the coie of the Nuscutt test is the i62=4 S13482 - the
connection with the foium (the connection between the action anu 0ntaiio) - this is the C0RE of the
test
! So how uo you apply the coie of the test. - you look to Rule 17.u2 of the Rules of Civil Pioceuuie anu if
one of the ciicumstances set out in Rule 17.u2 (toit committeu in 0N) is satisfieu, you J25=;F5 that
the ieal anu substantial connection test is satisfieu
! Bowevei, he ueciues that two of the ciicumstances set out in Rule 17.u2 ieally uon't establish a ieal anu
substantial connection so piobably shoulun't be ielieu on foi a piesumption - one of them is "uamage in
0ntaiio", the othei one is "necessaiy oi piopei paity"
! But that is not the enu of it - Shaip uoesn't aumit that Nuscutt was wiong, he just mouifies it - so yes, you
can focus on the connection (#1) but the iemaining 7 factois become geneial legal piinciples beaiing on
the analysis
! So what happeneu aftei van Bieua in 0ntaiio.
! All the juuges, incluuing the CA - all they uiu was focus on the Rules of the Couit (Rule 17.u2) - if you
satisfy a ciicumstances = H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# R they ieveiteu to the pie-Nuscutt situation anu the
othei factois weie ignoieu)
! Bowevei, counsel applieu foi leave to appeal to the SCC, was gianteu
! SCC also gianteu leave to appeal in two othei 0ntaiio cases - Coniau Black anu Bano case (uefamation
cases)
! In each of these 4 toit cases (peisonal injuiy anu uefamation), the paities hau contesteu both the
H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# of the 0ntaiio couits *'< the uiscietionaiy aspect (the uiscietion of the couit to
stay theii own action if they hau juiisuiction)
! In BC, we wonueieu why SCC wanteu to ieconsiuei the whole law of H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# etc. by heaiing
only 0N cases - theie weie BC, NS, etc. cases wheie leave to appeal was sought but no leave was gianteu
! So we hopeu that the SCC was ueciuing the law foi 0ntaiio only anu not foi the iest of us (this is of couise
completely inconsistent with the concept that the SCC shoulu be taking cases uealing with matteis of
national conceinnational inteiest)
! This is EFFECTIvELY what the couit uiu
! All cases weie hanueu uown by SCC on same uay
! In each case, the juugment foi the couit was wiitten by LeBell }
! The only case we aie uealing with is the van Bieua case - anu we aie only uiscussing the paits of the
uecision uealing with Z;26=@634689 (LeBell also uiscusses the uiscietionaiy element)
?28J8=64689= <1=5@ 89 405 %51=89= S82 H;@QF594
1. `8; 01>5 48 @6=469Q;6=0 <54_559 405 389=464;46891C =419@12@ 19@ 389iC634= 2;C5= - they aie two
sepaiate concepts
! This shoulu not come as a gieat suipiise - Noiguaiu, supplementeu by Bunt, constitutionalizeu
the ieal anu substantial connection
! But it's all veiy cleai that 405 389=464;46891C J26936JC5 6= 1 =419@12@ 1Q169=4 _0630 J28>69361C
2;C5= 319 <5 F51=;25@
2. LeBell } says positively anu cleaily, that 405 /)) 6= 984 1<8;4 48 25JC135 1CC 389iC634=K308635 8S C1_
2;C5= _640 405 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 45=4
! So this a uistinct constitutional stanuaiu - not a #$:1*5$4$'. foi conflicts
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
74
S. The constitutional stanuaiu ieflects the teiiitoiial limitations of piovincial legislative powei anu
piovincial aujuuicative powei
L! $05 389=464;46891C =419@12@ @85= 984 25h;625 ;96S82F J28>69361C Z;26=@6346891C 2;C5=
! BC can be uiffeient fiom 0ntaiio
! Why is he saying this. - the C}PTA was put to him as an aigument anu uiffeient iules - it has
always been the case that each piovince hau theii own list of ciicumstances anu the lists weie
nevei completely iuentical (although theie was oveilap) anu they uo not neeu to be
! So iules uon't neeu to be iuentical
! Now, we have C}PTA
! What LeBell } is thinking is that othei piovinces uon't have to auopt the C}PTA, they can have
uiffeient iules
S. The foium of necessity (a piovision in the C}PTA which is ielieu on heavily by Shaip } in the 0NCA
uecision of van Bieua mouifying Nuscutt) hau not been an issue befoie the couit
! What uoes this mean.
6. A iejection of a stiaw man (which makes EE woiiy about LeBell's giasp of common law iules) - he
says, we can't have complete uiscietion in juiisuiction - we nevei uiu
! Peihaps he is thinking about the Nuscutt factois anu the inclusion in the H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#
uecision of all the uiscietionaiy factois - maybe that is what he is talking about - ceitainly,
tiauitionally H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# has nevei been about complete uiscietion
! Anothei S piopositions iespecting H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$#
7. The ieal anu substantial connection test uoes not oust tiauitional bases of juiisuiction (paia 79)
! What aie the tiauitional bases of juiisuiction. - (a) J25=5935 (can be meie, tempoiaiy piesence)
anu (b) =;<F6==689 (unless mouifieu by statute)
! So tiauitional bases aie still goou - they still satisfy the ieal anu substantial connection stanuaiu
8. The J25=;FJ46>5 S13482= 1JJ28130 6= 405 26Q04 1JJ28130
! You can confine youi consiueiation to the Nuscutt fiist factoi - is theie satisfaction of a
ciicumstance listeu in the Rules of Couitstatute - it's a iebuttable piesumption (though its iaiely
iebutteu) - this is a goou appioach, we want oiuei, we want ceitainty
9. The piesence of the plaintiff is not sufficient to satisfy ieal anu substantial connection
! So if the only connectionciicumstance connecting the action to the piovince is that the plaintiff is
a iesiuent of the piovince, you haven't maue out juiisuiction
! Aiguably this is necessaiy because theie have been some lowei couit juugments that have been
veiy plaintiff-oiienteu (the plaintiff is heie, that's enough, the plaintiff shoulu be able to choose
his own foium) - he makes it cleai that that is not enough
1u. 4 piesumptive factois which aie ielevant to 4824 134689= (paia 9u-91) - he's not saying these aie the
only possible connecting factois, the list is not closeu - legislatuie oi couits can expanucieate new
categoiies
(a) Bomicile oi iesiuence of the uefenuant in the piovince
! Bifficulty with this: this is juiisuiction as of iight in the tiauitional sense
(b) Caiiying on business in the piovince
! *eyebiow iaise*
! These two aie stiange since both of those aie piesence in the piovince giving juiisuiction as
of iight
! The next two cleaily fall within the categoiy of the piesumptive factois that aie tiauitionally
set out in the iules of couit
(c) Toit committeu in the piovince
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
7S
(u) Contiact connecteu with the uispute was 4*<$ in the piovince
11. Be seems to appiove the concept of J59@194 Z;26=@634689 (paia 99)
! By that we mean he seems to be saying, well if the couit has juiisuiction ovei one pait of the case,
then they can take juiisuiction ovei eveiything - they uon't have to split the case
4V 4&*%"( M1"%' )"; M1"%&)+' 3 @%,*("0 V(+; Oaaa ^))-
M134=
! Conceins a mining pioject in Inuonesia
! They aie acquiiing inteiests in an Inuonesian company
! Aimeno Nines, a BC company, wants to auu Newmont as a uefenuant in the BC action
! Newmont is out of piovince - Belawaie coipoiation
! The allegation against Newmont is that it inuuceu bieach of contiact
! Newmont uoes not want to litigate in BC, objects, aigues no juiisuiction simplicitei, BC is !"#24 '"'d
5"';$'%$'8
"==;5
! Question foi BCCA: Can juiisuiction be iesolveu on the basis of the pleauings.
^))-
! 0iuinaiily, juiisuictional issues ought to be able to be iesolveu baseu on the pleauings
! Bowevei, if theie is an omission of mateiial facts in the pleauings, it is possible to supplement that
omission by affiuavit eviuence
! Anu if one paity can piouuce affiuavit eviuence, the othei paity can uo the same
! The couit is not in the business of ueciuing the meiits of the case at this point in time - just the
juiisuictional issue - all it wants to know is whethei you fit in unuei the ciicumstances
! In this paiticulai case, affiuavits weie submitteu by Newmont
! Newmont's affiuavit eviuence was to the effect that it coulun't have complieu anu it haun't inuuceu bieach
of contiact - it hau a contiactual iight (uoesn't mattei)
! The point is, the plaintiff haun't piouuceu any affiuavit eviuence to counteiact that anu theie was no
aiguable case - it was just a tenuous allegation
! So no juiisuiction against Newmont because theie was no goou aiguable case on the meiits against
Newmont
! This is a conflicts issue which is of paiticulai impoitance when the uefenuant is seiveu $A H2#%8 - whenevei
you seive piocess, you aie calling the uefenuant into the foium to uefenu
! The tiauitional view of the English juugments was that that was that that inteifeieu with the
soveieignty of the juiisuiction in which the uefenuant was locateu
! Even if we iationalize this, theie is still the pioblem that we aie pulling someone else into oui foium -
that is why in the $A :*#.$ application, the plaintiff who wanteu to seive $A H2#%8 hau to establish the S
factois: (1) ciicumstances, (2) goou aiguable case on the meiits, anu (S) that the couit was the most
appiopiiate foium foi the action
! So while you uon't see a iefeience to it in the C}PTA, it's still theie in the juiispiuuence - anu it is obviously
not going to be an issue if it's not iaiseu by the uefenuant (so that means, its not going to be an issue in
eveiy single case)
! "uoou aiguable case" - it's both a uomestic anu a conflicts issue - BCCA says that it may oi may not
coinciue with what uomestically is consiueieu a goou aiguable case
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
76
! This is a phiase that comes up in a vaiiety of contexts anu it is ueteimineu on the balance of
piobabilities, a :#%4* !*5%$ case
M5T M)1"0%")":% W)");) K0; 3 N/%<"% R @)2%+ !"0L+ K0; OaaR ^))-
! BCCA saying you can't use aiguments of counsel anu statements by counsel to supplement omissions of
fact in the pleauings, etc.
! If you want to litigate in a paiticulai common-law foium, you have to make suie you get all the mateiial,
juiisuictional anu othei facts in youi uocuments
'6=3254689: M82;F #89N)89>59659=
40+)"01: 90)& W)'% GTRL (]U.
! Rauical changes with iespect to the evolution of the uiscietionaiy piinciples when the uefenuant has been
seiveu within Englanu (the application of the piinciples goveining uiscietion aftei the uefenuant seiveu in
Englanu)
! That piinciple staits with the 1<;=5 8S J2835== 45=4 - simply meant in iesult that English couits iaiely
evei stayeu English pioceeuings when the uefenuant hau been seiveu in Englanu - that was common law,
tiauitional, juiisuiction as of iight - they hau powei, they weie the best couits in the woilu, how coulu
they possibly stay the English pioceeuing in favoui of some othei juiisuiction.
! The piinciple ieau this way: it came in two paits
1. The uefenuant hau to establish that continuance of the action woulu be unjust to him because it
woulu be oppiessive oi vexatious oi somehow otheiwise woulu constitute an abuse of piocess of the
couit *'<
2. This stay woulu not be unjust to the plaintiff
This was the test useu foi uecaues until 1974 - 0<% 40+)"01: 90)& :)'% (the case that staiteu the evolution)
! Ship collision
! BL saiu well we'ie not going to change the !"#421*, we'll just give the woius "oppiessive" anu
"vexatious" anu "abuse of piocess" a new ieauing
! Counsel in this case acting foi the uefenuant was tiying to get a stay of the English action - succeeueu
in getting a stay
! BL says we have to iespect the Belgian couits
! Counsel foi the uefenuant was Robeit uoth, who in 1974 was aiguing foi the English BL to auopt the
Scottish piinciple
! BL saiu we can't uo that, we'll just mouify the abuse of piocess test a little bit
M):9<)""(" 3 C(:U,)&% V+)'' K0; YijZ
! This case uiu mouify the foimulation, but it was a balanceu appioach
! 0ltimately, they saiu you have to balance these two things - faiiness to the plaintiff anu faiiness to the
uefenuant - it's a balancing act
9$1+1);) M)&101*% W(&$ 3 W)"'/+%H K0; GTEA (]U.
! A case connecteu to vancouvei, sulphui was loaueu onto boats in the haiboui
! 0ne iainy uay, the sulphui gets wet anu coiioueu the insiue of the boats
! Theie was litigation commenceu in Englanu, Canaua, Fiance, anu theie weie aibitiation pioceeuings, etc.
! The significant point: all the boats hau English insuieis
! A paiticulai boat, Spiliaua is owneu by a Libeiian coipoiation - its manageis aie uieek anu English
(locateu in uieece anu Englanu)
! The uefenuants consist of a Canauian coipoiation caiiying on busienss in BC (Cansulex Ltu)
! The ship was chaiteieu to an Inuian company to caiiy caigo fiom vancouvei to Inuia
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
77
! In the bills of lauing, theie was an aibitiation clause anu a choice of law clause selecting English law to
govein the contiact - so you have a cleai English connection
! The English couits woulu have hau juiisuiction, gave leave to seive the wiit on Cansulex $A H2#%8 because
theie is a contiact goveineu by English law - so we have a ieal anu substantial connection, even though
English couits uiun't talk about ieal anu substantial connection - but in oui teims, they woulu have hau a
ieal anu substantial connection
! Cansulex applies in Englanu to set asiue seivice of the wiit anu stay the English action
U5C@
! "S 984069Q 5C=5g 406= 31=5 5=41<C6=05= 08_ @6Si63;C4 64 6= 48 J25@634 405 8;438F5 _059 405 38;24= 125
5B5236=69Q @6=3254689
! Queen's Bench iefuseu to stay the action
! Couit of Appeal set it asiue, stayeu the action
! Bouse of Loius iestoies the tiial uecision
K /8 D8; Q54 @6SS52594 Z;@Q5=g 389=6@5269Q 405 25C5>194 S13482=g Q6>69Q @6SS52594 _56Q04 48 405
25C5>194 S13482=g 19@ Q54469Q @6SS52594 25=;C4=
! Each juuge, along the way, gave uiffeient weights to the uiffeient ciicumstances anu factois foi
consiueiation
%51=8969Q
! What Loiu uoth uoes in this case: is give you the complete statement of English uiscietionaiy piinciples
! Remembei: this is a seivice $A H2#%8 case - Cansulex was seiveu in BC
K U5 @51C= _640 405 S82F;C14689 8S 405 @6=325468912D J26936JC5= 1S452 =52>635 %H A/&1'
! Be also takes the oppoitunity to ueal with the uiscietionaiy piinciples aftei seivice within Englanu
! So we have the complete veision of English piinciples set out veiy cleaily in this case
! It's still the leauing English case as fai as the statement anu elaboiation of the piinciples
K /8 _5 01>5g i62=4 8S 1CCg 1@8J4689 8S 405 /38446=0 J26936JC5
! "The plea can nevei be sustaineu unless the couit is satisfieu that theie is some othei tiibunal, having
competent juiisuiction, in which the case may be tiieu moie suitably foi the inteiests of all the paities anu
foi the enus of justice."
! That's youi foimula, it uoesn't tell you what to look at, it just tells you that you consiuei the suitability,
taking account the inteiests of all the paities anu the enus of justice (whatevei that means)
! This is the goveining piinciple both foi uiscietion aftei seivice within Englanu anu aftei seivice $A H2#%8 -
SANE F0RN0LA
! Look at suitability, appiopiiateness, etc. - N0T meie convenience - we aie not flipping a coin - it has to be
cleaily moie suitable
! What is the main uiffeience between the application of the foimula anu the application of the foimula aftei
seivice in Englanu anu the application of the foimula aftei seivice $A H2#%8 - 405 @6SS525935 389=6=4= 69 405
1CC8314689 8S 405 <;2@59 8S J288S
1. If the uefenuant has been seiveu in Englanu, then the buiuen of pioof is on the uefenuant to peisuaue
the English couit that theie is anothei foium which is 51$*#1+ (quantum) moie appiopiiate foi this
action
! You have to say A+G juiisuiction is cleaily moie appiopiiate
! Theie has to be anothei foium which will have unuei its iules juiisuiction to heai the action
! So the uefenuant has to be able to say, A+G will have moie juiisuiction ovei this action baseu on its
own iules ANB is 51$*#1+ moie suitable to heai this case
2. If the uefenuant has been seiveu $A H2#%8, the English couits have not abanuoneu theii view that
calling a uefenuant who is out of the countiy (that that uefenuant has to come anu uefenu an action in
Englanu) is an exeicise of exoibitant juiisuiction
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
78
! It is seen to be an infiingement on the soveieignty of the othei state
! So because the English couit still iequiies the plaintiff to seek leave to seive, the plaintiff on the $A
:*#.$ application always has the buiuen of peisuauing the couits that Englanu is the most
appiopiiate foium foi the action
! The point is: the uefenuant can object
! The English plaintiff may get leave, may seive ex juiis, but the uefenuant can still come in anu
object - at that stage, in Englanu, unuei Spiliaua, the buiuen RENAINS on the plaintiff
! The plaintiff still has the buiuen of peisuauing the couit that Englanu is the most appiopiiate
foium foi the action
! The allocation of the buiuen of pioof can make an enoimous uiffeience to the outcome because a lot of
these cases in which uiscietion is invokeu aie pietty even balanceu in teims of appiopiiateness of the
two possible foia foi the action
! So it's the buiuen of pioof is going to make a uiffeience - it is veiy impoitant
! It's cleaily unueistoou in all the English cases, that we aie going to put that buiuen on the plaintiff if
piocess has been seiveu outsiue of Englanu
! Because we have the piinciples so cleai, theie shoulu be no mistake in the futuie
! The appeal couits geneially uo not inteifeie with the exeicise of uiscietion of unless the T} has cleaily
ignoieu a ielevant factoi that shoulu have been consiueieu oi completely misunueistoou the piinciple
! But: uiscietion is uiscietion is uiscietion
! The two most impoitant iesulting factois in this case:
1. The buiuen of pioof
2. The Scottish piinciple
W)'0)"<( 3 >&(," R C((0 GTEa (]U.
! The fiist case that came to the BL aftei the evolution began in 1974 (Atlantic Stai) foi consiueiation foi an
1946N=;64 69Z;934689
! Involveu an employee of a ship uockeu in an English poit, seivices weie being pioviueu by Biown & Root
(an Ameiican company)
! Castanho was a Poituguese Seaman, who happeneu to be seiving on this ship
! Castanho's foot got tangleu in a iope, he was pulleu off the ueck, anu then they just ieleaseu the iope anu
uioppeu him on his heau
! Be became a paiaplegic
! An action was commenceu in Englanu - that's wheie the toitnegligence occuiieu
! Some Ameiican lawyeis (fiom Texas) tiackeu him uown in the hospital anu tolu him to sue in Texas - he'll
get a lot moie money in uamages
! So Castanho staiteu an action in Texas
! In the meantime, Castanho was shippeu off back to Poitugal
! This case enus up in the BL - theie aie all soits of juiisuictional maneuveis
! "==;5: At the enu of the uay, BL is ueciuing whethei to stay the English action oi enjoin continuation of the
Texas action
! 0ne aigument: English uamages will be fine, he uoesn't neeu Texas uamages - BL was pisseu off about this
- uon't evei use this aigument
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
79
K V014 @6@ 405 U. =1D 1<8;4 _014 _5 @8 69 19 1946N=;64 69Z;934689d m _5 1JJCD 405 =1F5 J26936JC5= m
_014 6= 405 F8=4 6FJ824194 J26936JC5= S82 406= 134689d
K V5 =08;C@ <5 C88f69Q 14 _014 405 F8=4 1JJ28J26145 S82;F 6=
K U8_5>52g 895 Z;@Q5 =16@ D8; =08;C@ ;=5 5B425F5 31;4689 69 6==;69Q 19 69Z;934689 J2806<6469Q
405 38FF5935F594K389469;14689 8S 1 S8256Q9 J28355@69Q m 2538Q96769Q 4014 S8256Q9 38;24=
F6Q04 <5 1 <64 69=;C45@ 1= ,9QC19@ 6= 69452S5269Q k1C408;Q0 69@62534CDl _640 J28355@69Q= 69
84052 Z;26=@634689=
K $05 69@62534 5SS534 6= 48 69452S525 _640 S8256Q9 J28355@69Q=
! Anti suit injunctions weie in fact few anu fai between in Englanu - eithei applications foi them
weie iaie oi gianting them was iaie
9(:1%0% @)01(")+ !";/'0&1%++% 4%&('$)01)+% I9@!4J 3 K%% N/1 7)U GTER (] ?)
! 0n appeal fiom Biunai
! This case is a statement of English piinciples
! The souice of the litigation was a helicoptei ciash in Biunai
! 0ne passengei, who was caiiying a multi-million uollai business - a wealthy ueceaseu
! The helicoptei itself was manufactuieu by a Fiench company (SNIA), owneu by an English company anu
seiviceu by a Nalaysian company
! Who is suing. The ueceaseu's wiuow (Lee Kui }ak) - also executoi of the estate
! She commences multiple actions against a numbei of uefenuants
! She commences an action in Biunai against the Fiench manufactuiei anu the Nalaysian seivicei
! She commences an action in Fiance against the Fiench manufactuiei (uiscontinueu anu uiops out of
the pictuie)
! She commences an action in Texas against the Fiench manufactuiei anu an unknown numbei of
associateu companies anu the Nalaysian company anu its associates
! The texas couit hau juiisuiction unuei its own iules, unuei Texas law
! Theie was a settlement ieacheu in texas against the Nalaysian uefenuant but not the Fiench company -
the Fiench company uoes not want to be sueu in Texas
! So SNIA (Aeiospatiale) askeu the Texas couit to stay the Texas action - asking the Texas couit to stay the
L0CAL pioceeuings in Texas - that application is uismisseu by the Texas Couit
! What's woise than being sueu in texas. - Being sueu in Texas anu Biunai
! In Nalaysia, the Nalaysian company is willing to submit to the juiisuiction of the Biunai couit
! What happeneu in Biunai.
! Biunai goes on appeal
! The couit gets a copy of Spiliaua hot off the piesses anu applies those piinciples but uoesn't giant an
injunction
! Case goes up to the PC
"==;5
K ?26>D )8;936C Q54= 48 254069f 405 S82F;C14689 8S 405 J26936JC5 Q8>52969Q 1946N=;64 69Z;934689=
! Loiu uoth holus that W)'0)"<( was wiong - you shoulun't just apply !"#24 5"';$'%$'8 - the Castanho
appioach is much too libeial - we have to tighten this test up
! We have to be moie cautious
! We have to go back to the abuse of piocess test anu the question of vexatious
! Nost of the juugment is conceineu with uiscussing the olu cases on injunction anu anti-suit injunctions
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
8u
! Relevant passage: p. Su8 of casebook - =54= 8;4 405 J28J52 ,9QC6=0 1JJ28130 _059 1 J124D 01= 1JJC65@
S82 1946N=;64 69Z;934689
! In a case such as the piesent wheie a iemeuy foi a paiticulai wiong is available in both an English (oi
Biunei) couit anu a foieign couit (so you have two possible places to litigate - they both have
juiisuiction), the English couit will geneially speaking only iestiain a plaintiff fiom pioceeuing in a
foieign couit if such puisuit woulu be vexatious oi oppiessive (so you have uppeu the stanuaiu)
! The pioceeuings in Texas, to satisfy this new test, must be peiceiveu by the English couit to be
oppiessive anu vexatious
! This piesupposes that as a geneial iule, the English (oi Biunei couit) must concluue that it pioviues
.-$ '*.2#*1 !"#24 foi the tiial of the action
! So the English (oi Biunei) couit has to make an application of uiscietionaiy piinciples
! "$05 914;21C S82;Fe - that's simply anothei way of iefeiiing to "cleaily the most appiopiiate foium
foi the action" - they have juiisuiction, but weighing the two, we aie the most appiopiiate foium foi
the action
! That analysis has been auopteu anu the English couit is ueciuing about ITS appiopiiateness
! 4%&('$)01)+% says we aie being askeu foi an anti-suit injunction piohibiting the Texas pioceeuings, fiist
thing we have to uo is ueciue whethei ,% aie the most appiopiiate foium foi the action (not just that we
have juiisuiction)
! Anu fuithei, since the couit is conceineu with the enus of justice, account must be taken not only of
injustice to the uefenuant but also of injustice to the plaintiff if he is not alloweu to uo so - so you'ie still
balancing - 1""E 2: .-%8 U2".$
! We might be the most appiopiiate foium foi the action, but woulu it be unjust to the plaintiff if we
issueu an injunction - you aie balancing the justice
! /8 1= 1 Q59521C 2;C5: the couit will not giant an injunction if by uoing so it will uepiive the plaintiff of
auvantages in the foieign couit of which it woulu be unjust to uepiive him
! Impoitant point: "Foitunately, that pioblem can often be oveicome by appiopiiate unueitakings
given by the uefenuant oi by gianting an injunction on appiopiiate teims
! }ust as, in cases of stay of pioceeuings, the paiallel pioblem of auvantages to the plaintiff in the
uomestic foium which is, piima facie, inappiopiiate, can likewise often be solveu by gianting a
stay upon teims."
! So you'ie exeicising uiscietion - impoitant point - you'ie asking the couit to exeicise uiscietion to
piohibit the continuation of that pioceeuing, stay the local pioceeuing
! But you piobably have alieauy taken some steps eithei in the foium oi in Texas (ex. Biscoveiy -
Ameiican iules foi uiscoveiy aie moie geneious than Canauian iules) - so it is often the case that
that is an auvantage anu that might be the ieason foi commencing youi action in Texas
! So what kinu of conuitions can we attach.
K $05 38;24 F1D 144130 389@64689= 48 405 =41D 8S 405 ,9QC6=0 134689 J28355@69Q= 82 48 405
1946N=;64 69Z;934689 - it's not absolute
! Loiu uoth ietuins to the oppiession anu vexation stanuaiu as a way of inhibiting English couits
fiom uistiibuting anti-suit injunctions heie, theie anu eveiywheie because that inteifeies
inuiiectly with the foieign pioceeuings
K ^;4 D8;jCC 984635 4014 405 38;24 6= =46CC C88f69Q 14 1CC 405 S13482= 69 405 31=5g C88f69Q 14 Z;=4635
1= <54_559 405 J12465= k08_ 319 _5 F1f5 406= 1 S162 @536=689l
K ^;4 Q59521CCD =J51f69Qg 2125CD _6CC 19 1946N=;64 69Z;934689 <5 6==;5@ 69 1 =4216Q04 0525 82
40525 =64;14689 m 984 F19D ,9QC6=0 31=5= 5>59 =6935 406= 895 @51C69Q _640 =08;C@ _5 59Z869
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
81
389469;14689 8S $5B1= J28355@69Q=
K $0525 6= 895 3145Q82D 8S 31=5= 69 ,9QC19@ 08_5>52 69 _0630 1946N=;64 69Z;934689= 125 6==;5@ 1CF8=4
1;48F14631CCD m ,9QC6=0 38;24= 125 h;645 _6CC69Q 1<8;4 Q219469Q 19 1946N=;64 69Z;934689 48 J284534
40562 8_9 Z;26=@634689 kJ! PaYl
K /8 6S 64 6= 1 38942134 134689 S82 5B1FJC5 k405 38942134 01= 1 3C1;=5 4014 19D @6=J;45= _6CC <5
12<642145@ 69 .89@89l 19@ 895 8S 405 J12465= =;5= 69 "41CDg 405 ,9QC6=0 38;24 _6CC Q2194 19 1946N
=;64 69Z;934689 48 J284534 ,9QC6=0 Z;26=@634689 48 12<642145 1= 405 J12465= 01>5 1Q255@ 48
41&B/' !";/'0&1% V!G 3 F)0%+ %0 )+ GTTE (] U.
! Simply ieiteiatesconfiims one of the points in Aeiospatiale
! It aiose fiom the ciash of an aiiplane in Inuia
! Passengeis weie killeuinjuieuetc
! Actions weie commenceu in Inuia
! Some of the paities in the action commenceu in Inuia weie iesiuent, uomicileu Biitish nationals - some of
the plaintiffs weie iesiuent, piesent in Englanu
! These Biitish citizens, having commenceu an action in Inuia, they also commenceu an action in Texas
! The uefenuants in the Inuian action applieu in the Inuian couit foi an anti-suit injunction anu they got it -
the Inuian couit issueu an anti-suit injunction piohibiting these plaintiffs fiom continuing theii action in
Texas (actually it was a woilu-wiue anti-suit injunction)
! The plaintiffs simply ignoieu it anu continueu the action - this is the weakness of an %' :$#8"'*4 oiuei -
all you can uo is punish the paities who have bieacheu the oiuei
! So the uefenuants look aiounu anu they say wheie aie these plaintiffs.
! They came to the English couits having obseiveu that the paities they wanteu enjoineu weie to be
founu physically in Englanu
! They askeu the English couits to $%.-$# iecognize the Inuian injunction "# to issue an anti-suit
injunction
! The English T} saiu we can't iecognize the Inuian injunction - '".$( this is not consistent with the cuiient
Canauian law, we now iecognize both pecuniaiy anu non-pecuniaiy foieign oiueis
! They hau to pioceeu on the alteinative, to issue an anti-suit injunction
K $06= 6= 3C512CD 1 31=5 _0525 405 ,9QC6=0 38;24 01@ J8_52 8>52 405 J12465= 48 <5 59Z8695@
K $05 U. =1D= _5 319j4 @8 4014 <531;=5 _5 125 984 405 914;21C S82;F S82 405 ):01(" kF51969Q 405
134689 389352969Q 405 162JC195 321=0l
K V5 319j4 =6FJCD J8C635 8;2 25=6@594= S82 405 <595i64 8S 84052 Z;26=@634689=g _5 319 89CD 41f5 405
5B42182@6912D =45J 8S Q219469Q 19 1946N=;64 69Z;934689 S82 8;2 25=6@594= 6S _5 125 405 914;21C S82;F
S82 405 134689
K $05D F6Q04 01>5 <559 405 914;21C S82;F S82 405 69Z;934689 1JJC6314689g <;4 405D _5259j4 405
914;21C S82;F S82 405 134689 126=69Q S28F 405 162JC195 321=0
K /8 4014j= 1 h;1C6i6314689 89 405 J8_52 8S 405 38;24 48 6==;5 19 1946N=;64 69Z;934689 m D8; 319j4 Z;=4 Q8
48 405 38;24 _0525 405 J12465= D8; _194 405 69Z;934689 1Q169=4 125 C83145@ m 64j= Q8441 <5 1 38;24
4014 386936@5= _640 405 J28J52 S82;F S82 405 F169 134689
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
82
4*:<%* F&(;/:0' !": 3 >W]W> GTTP /))
K ?28<1<CD =46CC 405 C51@69Q 31=5 <840 89 405 @8342695 8S 6(&/* "("X:("3%"1%"' 19@ 89 1946N=;64
69Z;934689 kO _1D= 69 _0630 405 S82;F m 405 38;24 _0630 01= Z;26=@634689 8>52 405 134689 m 319
5B5236=5 64= @6=3254689
! Amchem ueals with both
! Case aiising in BC - WCB of BC is one of the paities
M134=
! The plaintiffs aie mostly BC iesiuents
! Theie aie some woikeis anu suivivois (asbestos litigation)
! They aie suffeiing the consequences of being exposeu to asbestos
! Some of them have uieu, anu the suivivois aie biinging the action
! vast majoiity of the 194 plaintiffs aie locateu in BC
! Befenuants consist of coipoiate uefenuants piimaiily Ameiican companies but not exclusively
! They aie not concentiateu in any paiticulai single Ameiican state
! Anu many of the woikeis weie exposeu in BC - in fact they claim they weie all exposeu in BC while they
weie woiking heie
! The woikeis have alieauy been paiu some compensation foi theii woik-ielateu injuiies by the WCB anu
the WCB is biinging this action in all theii names anu it wants to iecovei what it has paiu out to the
woikeis anu anything extia woulu be iepaiu to the woikeis
! So what uo these 194 plaintiffs uo. They commence an action in Texas
! Texas at this time, eaily 199us, the Texas couits weie viitually a mini-inuustiy of asbestos-ielateu claims -
it was the place to go to biing an asbestos-ielateu action
! The coipoiate uefenuants iequesteu the Texas couits to stay the action in Texas - piopei thing to uo - sue
us somewheie else
! The Texas couits ueclineu to stay the Texas action
! Baving not succeeueu in staying the Texas action, the uefenuants in the Texas action come to BC (1989)
anu they biing applications in BCSC anu what they ieally want is an 1946N=;64 69Z;934689 m they want the
BC couit to piohibit the BC plaintiffs fiom continuing the action in Texas
! Because they weien't suie if they coulu get just an anti-suit injunction without having some kinu of
substantive claim attacheu to it, they also biing an action claiming uamages foi abuse of piocess oi some
othei fluff
! Sopinka }. says no you uon't have to uo that
! So what happens.
! Theie aie anti-suit injunctions (an oiuei piohibiting the plaintiffs fiom continuing theii action), theie aie
anti-anti-suit injunctions (an injunction piohibiting anyone fiom getting an injunction to piohibit the
oiiginal injunction), theie aie anti-anti-anti-suit injunctions (one level fuithei) - ueai Loiu - we have all
thiee of them heie
! This is a classic case of Z;26=@6346891C F195;>5269Q by the plaintiffs anu the uefenuants
! Sopinka }. ignoies all of that in the SCC juugment
^)/) m $H
! BCSC giants an anti-suit injunction
! Be was annoyeu at the Texas attoiney
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
8S
^))-
! 0pholus T}, continues the anti-suit injunctions
! Appaiently at this time, Texas uiun't have a !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8 uoctiine
/)) "==;5:
! Shoulu SCC continue the anti-suit injunction. Shoulu the SCC confiim the oiuei piohibiting the BC
plaintiffs fiom continuing the action in Texas.
/)) %51=8969Q:
! SCC case uiviues itself into S geneial paits:
G! G
+5
J124 389=6=4= 8S F;=69Q= 1<8;4 405 J28<C5F 8S S82;F =08JJ69Q
! ulobalization piomotes foium shopping, tiying to get a litigation auvantage - anu this is a classic
case
! This is a common pioblem
O! O
-A
J124 6= 4014 69 )191@1g 405 J121F8;94 J26936JC5 4014 _5 ;=5 69 1CC 405=5 Z;26=@6346891C
@536=689= 6= 38F64D
! But then he has to conceue that comity is not univeisally iespecteu
! EE is puzzleu by this: comity is not a fixeu concept, it is a concept about iespect of the othei legal
system, it uoesn't iequiie any specific iules
! The fact that a legal system has conflicts iules is an inuication that they accept the concept of
comity
! Any legal system in the woilu that has conflicts iules at all iespects comity but theii iules aie
not necessaiily the same as ouis
! Then he says Canauian couits have to step in whenevei theie is injustice abioau
! When will theie be injustice in the juiisuictional context. - 40525 _6CC <5 19 69Z;=4635 69 405
Z;26=@6346891C 38945B4 _0595>52 S8256Q9 38;24= =08;C@ @53C695 Z;26=@634689 19@ @89j4
! EE - civil law systems geneially uon't exeicise uiscietion - they tenu to have naiiow juiisuictional
iules anu they uon't stay theii own actions - common law is a jungle - we go ieally wiue to stait
with anu then we exeicise uiscietion anu naiiow it uown (that's the Patel case)
! We have now to set out when we think that couits =08;C@ uecline to exeicise juiisuiction, =08;C@
stay theii own action - we have to uiscuss !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8
! Collectively, cases (spilliaua anu the othei one) have spelleu out f"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8
! We haven't uone it since the 4"0)&%' 9<1$$1"2 W(&$ case in 1978 (a seivice ex juiis case)
! Since then, theie's been M:9<)""(" anu 9$1++1);), anu collectively these cases set out the
uoctiine of foium non-conveniens
! Anu then he uiscusses the concept anu he concluues that we'ie all conceineu about secuiing
the enus of justice (Spilliaua)
! "Accoiuingly, Canaua was the most convenient foium foi both "the puisuit of the action" anu
"foi secuiing the enus of justice" - incoipoiating a Scottish piinciple - we'ie all on the same
page he says
! Can we leave it theie. - No we can't
! Can you assume that we just apply Spilliaua. - No You can't
K U5 41Cf= 1<8;4 P S13482= 69 405 6(&/* :("3%"1%"' J26936JC5 8S @6=3254689
1. Fiist of all (thinking about NcShannon) - he talks about juiiuical auvantages
! We'ie not going to consiuei them sepaiately in Canaua - just thiow them into the pot -
not a sepaiate factoi - just consiuei it in the pie-stage piocess that NcShannon uses
2. Talks about the buiuen of pioof - he puts the buiuen of pioof always on the uefenuant
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
84
! Why uoesn't he ietain the English allocation of buiuen of pioof that is caiefully set out in
Spilliaua.
! Because he says it's an 0iuei 11 quiik, it's a statutoiy quiik
! In Spilliaua, it was cleaily explaineu why the buiuen of pioof shoulu iemain on the
plaintiff in seivice ex juiis cases - because it's Englanu ieaching its exoibitant juiisuiction
so the plaintiff has got to justify it
! But Sopinka }. says it's just a quiik of Englanu - no iationale - he saiu foiget it unless
theie aie iules in the piovince that iequiie it
! BCCA hau been inteipieting anu continueu to inteipiet the BCSC Rules as imposing the
buiuen of pioof on the plaintiff in seivice ex juiis cases
! 0N uiu the same thing - so many juiisuictions in Canaua which continueu to impose
allocate the buiuen of pioof onto the plaintiff in seivice ex juiis cases
! So Sopinka uiun't ieally caie what we uiu in the piovinces but he coulun't see any
justification foi the allocation so he saiu, oiuinaiily it's on the uefenuant unless you have
youi own statutoiy quiiks
S. It must be cleaily establisheu (this is the quantum issue) that theie is a moie appiopiiate
foium somewheie else (consistent with Spilliaua)
! You'ie not flipping a coin
K -F305F 6= F8=4 S25h;594CD ;=5@ S82 _014 64 =1D= 1<8;4 S82;F 989N389>59659= <531;=5
40525 125 =8 F19D 31=5= 69>8C>69Q 69>8314689 8S Z;@6361C @6=3254689 69 Z;26=@6346891C 31=5=
19@ 64j= 89CD S82;F 989N389>59659= 14 6==;5
P! $059 05 F8>5= 89 48 405 1946N=;64 69Z;934689
! Be notes that the most iecent English PC case is the Aeiospatiale case - he sets out the piinciples,
then he says in applying those piinciples, you have to have uue iegaiu foi Canauian piinciples
! EE has no iuea what he's talking about
! So: how uo we uo it in Canaua. - this ciitical iecipe is founu in p. S21 of casebook
! Be sets out, fiist of all, 2 oiuinaiygeneial iules - "pie-conuitions" - they aie "oiuinaiy" which
means that a couit is not bounu by them
1. 0iuinaiy Rule 1: Paities in a foieign action can't have an application foi an anti-suit injunction in
a Canauian couit unless the foieign action is alieauy commenceu - so you've got to have iealizeu
the iisk not just be anticipating the iisk
! The tiauitional English way is: anti-suit injunction to commence oi continue foieign
pioceeuings
! So we've tiieu to iestiict it to continuation of foieign pioceeuings - oiuinaiily
2. 0iuinaiy Rule 2: Theie shoulu still be no application (assuming the foieign action has been
commenceu) foi an anti-suit injunction in Canaua until you've askeu the foieign couit to exeicise
its uiscietion anu stay its own action
! Won't help you veiy much if the action has been commenceu in a civil law system, but useful if
it is a common law action
! You have to give the couit a chance to uecline to stay the action
! ./;(" 3 V%(' K)"2/)2% W(&$(&)01(" GTTR &#') - 0NBC uiu not complyuiu not tieat
those pie-conuitions as absolute, just as oiuinaiy iules
! Was a case in which the plaintiff in the 0ntaiio case hau signeu on with the Language
Coipoiation to teach English in }apan
! She went to visit China anu hau got in a cai acciuent in China
! In the contiact she hau signeu it saiu any uisputes woulu be goveineu by }apanese law
anu pioviueu foi benefits.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
8S
! So she gets bauly injuieu in China
! She comes home to 0ntaiio
! 0nuei the contiact foi $14S,uuu - that's not enough
! She wants to biing an action in 0ntaiio
! She is asking foi geneial uamages of $1u million, etc.
! Bottom line: she makes an application in 0ntaiio foi an anti-suit injunction without
having askeu the }apanese couit to stay its own action
! Fiist 2 iules aie oiuinaiy iules: they can be uisiegaiueu if ciicumstances waiiant
! Now: inteiesting pait - we aie alieauy uiffeient fiom Aeiospatiale - in that case, we saiu
Biuani was the natuial juiisuiction foi the action anu went fiom theie
! We'ie saying, you guys, you uo it fiist - if the foieign couit says, we'ie staying, go home, then
pioblem solveu
S. Then we get to the uifficult pait: if the foieign couit uoes not agiee to stay its own action, now we
have to make a uifficult uecision:
! We have an action in being
! Shoulu we now giant you an injunction staying that action.
! This is what happens: foieign couit makes a uecision: we aie going to continue the action
heie (we have juiisuiction)
! Now, we'ie in a binu in Canaua anu have to ueciue what to uo
! So what uo we uo. - we EvAL0ATE the foieign uecision not to stay
! When will we uo that. - we will uo that only if we aie 405 most appiopiiate foium foi the
action (natuial foium, the one that is foium conveniens in light of the ciicumstances of
the case) oi 19 appiopiiate foium foi the action (we have teiiitoiial competence). - we
uon't know which
! Niuule paia on p. S21
! EE woulu inteipiet it consistently with Patel anu Aeiospatiale if I weie a juuge - I woulu
stay we shoulu only giant anti-suit injunction if we aie TBE most appiopiiate foium foi
the action (the natuial foium)
! But we aie not suie
! But we shoulun't uo it if we'ie not, at the minimum, an appiopiiate foium
L! U8_ @8 _5 5>1C;145 405 S8256Q9 @536=689 984 48 =41Dd
! This is why we have the section on foium non-conveniens - we have to unueistanu oui own
piinciples anu ueciue baseu on those piinciples whethei the foieign couit hau a 251=891<C5
<1=6= foi its uecision
! It's not quite: woulu we have come to the same conclusion anu it is intenueu to take account
of legal systems that uon't exeicise uiscietion
! Suppose that the foieign legal system wheie the action is commenceu is a civil law system
that has no uoctiine of foium non-conveniens, that uoesn't mean we automatically giant an
anti-suit injunction because that foium uoesn't have a uoctiine of uiscietion
! What we uo is think about what we woulu have uone using the uoctiine of foium non-
conveniens in those ciicumstances - anu say, uiu they have a ieasonable basis foi that
conclusion.
! 0nly if they aie blatantly wiong, shoulu we issue an anti-suit injunction
Y! &95 F825 =41Q5 8S 4069f69Q 48 Q8 4028;Q0 <5S825 405 1946N=;64 69Z;934689 6= 134;1CCD 6==;5@
k_5j>5 Q895 4028;Q0 405 J25N389@64689=g S8256Q9 38;24 01= @53C695@ 1 =41Dg _5 01>5
5>1C;145@ 40562 @536=689g _5 01>5 38F5 48 405 3893C;=689 4014 40525 _1= 98 <1=6= S82 64l m
@8 _5 1;48F14631CCD Q2194 19 1946N=;64 69Z;934689d
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
86
! We will only giant an anti-suit injunction if continuation of that foieign action is 0N}0ST oi
will piouuce an injustice - that is 984 consistent with Aeiospatiale
! In Aeiospatiale, the couit uelibeiately ieinjecteu the concept of oppiession anu vexation in an
anti-suit injunction to slow the whole piocess uown anu make juuges ieally cautious in
gianting injunctions
! Sopinka wants flexibility - talks about injustice - uon't talk about oppiession anu vexation in
Canaua
! You only have to go to the level of peisuauing the couit that continuing the action will
somehow piouuce an injustice
! Then you shoulu get youi anti-suit injunction
! BCSC anu BCCA gives an anti-suit injunction in this case
! SCC says - no, you can continue in Texas - can't see any injustice
! You uon't always get the iesults you expect
! This case is one of the few Canauian cases in which an anti-suit injunction has actually been issueu
b(/"2 3 5-:( !"0L+ (6 W)");) K0; OaaE &#)-
! Stiaight common law
! Wiongful uismissalcontiact action
! Young suing Tyco
! Fiist woikeu in 0ntaiio foi Tyco
! Then in Ameiican states, piimaiily in Inuiana
! Be gets fiieu allegeuly foi sexual haiassment
! Be biings an action in 0ntaiio
! Tyco asks the 0ntaiio couit to stay the 0ntaiio action - stiaight foium non-conveniens on giounus that
Inuiana woulu be the cleaily moie appiopiiate foium foi the action
! The only issue in this case is foium non-conveniens
! Nakes seveial piopositions about applying the piinciple of foium non-conveniens
! Fiist of all, Laskin } lists a numbei of factois commonly consiueieu by couits in exeicising theii uiscietion
anu ueciuing which of the two contenueu-foi juiisuiction is the most appiopiiate foium foi the action
(paia 26) - the factois that he lists incluue 2 factois peculiai to contiact actions:
1. The location wheie the contiact in uispute was signeu;
2. The applicable law of the contiact;
P! $05 C8314689 8S _6495==5=g 5=J5361CCD f5D _6495==5=n
4. The location wheie the bulk of the eviuence will come fiom;
Y! $05 Z;26=@634689 69 _0630 405 S134;1C F14452= 128=5n
6. The iesiuence oi place of business of the paities; anu
R! $05 C8== 8S 1 C5Q646F145 Z;26@631C 1@>1941Q5!
! These aie not exhaustiveueteiminative, it is uiscietionaiy - no limit to the factois that can be consiueieu,
counsel is fiee to aigue any factois that aie peculiai to the case but ovei the yeais, couits have come up
with stanuaiu lists
! Be states, consistently with Amchem, the stanuaiu to uisplace choice of foium is high - theie's got to be a
cleaily moie appiopiiate foium somewheie else
! Anu then he talks about the fact that in this paiticulai case, on the meiits of the contiact action, the paities
weie in uisagieement about what the contiact was, whethei the contiact was an 0ntaiio oi Inuiana
contiact, etc.
! Anu he says that in this pieliminaiyinteilocutoiy stage in the tiial (you'ie not ueciuing the facts, it's not a
tiial on the meiits), the couit shoulu auopt a "piuuential, not an aggiessive appioach, to fact finuing" - so
it shoulu be baseu on the plaintiff's claim IF it has a ieasonable basis in the iecoiu - if you'ie going to
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
87
accept the plaintiff's veision of the facts, assuming theie is a ieasonable basis the iecoiu - you aie not
going to ueciue baseu on the plaintiff's veision anu the uefenuant's veision *. .-%8 8.*&$ R that comes latei
in the meiits
! So: he accepts Young's veision of the facts about the contiact, anu makes his uecision on that basis
! Be finus to stay the 0ntaiio action
! Typical appioach, typical list of factois in the uiscietionaiy uecision
K+(-;L' T";%&,&10%&' 3 W(*1":( K0; OaaR ^))-
! C}PTA
! This is a case of much juiisuictional maneuveiing
! What we now call Teck Cominco, staits way back in 19u6,
! Teck Cominco geneiates slag in the leau-zinc smelting piocess anu it uischaiges the slag into the Columbia
iivei
! Teck at all points thioughout its life since 19u6 has complieu with piovincial law - it has nevei been
polluting illegally
! Teck uischaiges slag into the Columbia iivei anu it's position thioughout is: slag is ineit, not huitful oi
haimful to the enviionment - they saiu we coulu uo it, we uiu it, we uiun't huit anybouy
! 0nfoitunately foi Teck, at some point in the 194us in the 0S, slag staiteu to collect at the bottom of Lake
Roosevelt anu that appaiently uiu pose a hazaiu to the enviionment
! Along comes Compiehensive Enviionmental Response, Compensation, anu Liability Act (CERCLA) anu the
Enviionmental Piotection Agencies comes up anu chats with Teck about its uischaige anu ultimately, Teck
complies with whatevei the EPA wants
! 199S - Teck ceases to uischaige slag into the iivei
! 0nfoitunately foi Teck, in 2uu4, the Confeueiateu Tiibes of the Colville Reseivation commence an action in
Washingtong state against Teck unuei CERCLA - they want uamages, big uamages - F)U((0)' 3 5%:U
W(*1":( D[[c
! In that case theie is juiisuictional pioceeuings uown in Washington
! Teck applies to have the Washington action uismisseu foi lack of juiisuiction, Canaua actually suppoits
it anu Washington iefuses
! Washington says, no, we aie the best place foi this action puisuant to CERCLA
! That application foi CERCLA iaises conceins among some people on the giounus that it is an extia-
teiiitoiial application of CERCLA - but that is a ieu heiiing
! Teck sees the wiiting on the wall - sees it's not going to succeeu in peisuauing the Washington state
couits to not heai the Pakootas action unuei CERCLA so it staits contacting its insuiance companies
! Teck has always been well-insuieu
! It says: we'ie going to be claiming on these - we have enviionmental actions going in Washington,
piobably some in BC, we'ie going to be claiming on the policies, we want to make suie you will pay up
! Insuiance company says, nope, we aie not coveiing - that's the stanuoff between the insuiance
companies anu Teck
! Now Teck anu the insuiance companies entei into a confiuentiality agieement about theii legal
uiscussions anu a stanu-still agieement, meaning we won't sue you, you won't sue us
! Stanu-still agieements have a teimination uate - the teimination uate foi the stanu-still agieement
between Teck Cominco anu the insuiance companies (incluuing Lloyus) is Novembei 2S, 2uuS
! Aftei that uate passes, eithei siue can commence an action against the othei siue
! This is wheie Teck uoes something that the BC couits uiun't like veiy much
K &95 F69;45 1S452 F6@96Q04 89 #8>5F<52 OPg OaaY 14 GO:aG -I k89 #8>5F<52 OLlg $53f
38FF5935= J28355@69Q= 69 V1=069Q489 /4145
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
88
K &9 #8>5F<52 OLg T 08;2= C1452g _059 405 25Q6=42D 8J59= 0525g 405 69=;21935 38FJ1965= 38FF5935
19 134689 1Q169=4 $53f 69 ^)
! Bow coulu you stait an action in Washington State aftei miunight.
! Tuins out, one of the ways you can commence an action in Washington state is foi an agent who was
an ex-juuge to get himself inviteu to uinnei at the home of anothei juuge anu hanus him the papeis
shoitly aftei miunight - that staits the action
! The action is commenceu fiist in Washington state
! Anu then you get juiisuictional jockeying - this is the uieaueu 1%8 *1%7% :$'<$'8 (simply means an action
penuing elsewheie) - J121CC5C 134689=
! So theie is an action in BC anu an action in Washington state
! Washington state: Teck v Lloyus
! In BC: Lloyus v Teck
! Both paities askeu foi stays of local actions
! Insuiance companies askeu in Washington state
! Teck asks in BC
! Washington couit makes its uecision fiist - says, no, this is the most appiopiiate foium foi the action
! Washington state uoes exeicise uiscietion (!"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8), uoes use a piocessfactois veiy similai
but not iuentical to that employeu in BC
! But uiffeient couits even in common law Canaua can consiuei uiffeient factois so the Washington couit
uoesn't consiuei piecisely the same factois that a BC couit will consiuei but they aie pietty similai - the
oveilap is veiy big
! So action is pioceeuing in Washington state (the insuiance action)
! 0p heie, in BC, Teck tiies to peisuaue the BCSC to stay the BC action
! The insuiance companies aie not BC companies, they aie inteinational, they keep changing theii names,
etc.
! So they aie not all in Washington state, but neithei aie they concentiateu in BC
! Teck howevei is BC (.)
! The toitwhatevei it is occuiieu in Washington state, that's wheie the uamage occuiieu anyway
! So Teck asks foi a stay of the BC action anu we have now become in BC subject to the C}PTA so it is not
stiaight common law anymoie
! The question is: is theie uiscietion unuei the C}PTA - you just have to ieau the C}PTA to know theie is
uiscietion in the statute to know theie is uiscietion, it authoiizes uiscietion (s. 11)
W7F54 'O YYE ?1':&%01(" )' 0( 0<% %H%&:1'% (6 0%&&10(&1)+ :(*$%0%":%
11 (1) Aftei consiueiing the inteiests of the paities to a pioceeuing anu the enus of justice, a couit may
uecline to exeicise its teiiitoiial competence in the pioceeuing on the giounu that a couit of anothei state is a
F825 appiopiiate foium in which to heai the pioceeuing.
! s. 11(1) is basically the Scottish piinciple
(2) A couit, in ueciuing the question of whethei it oi a couit outsiue Biitish Columbia is the moie appiopiiate
foium in which to heai a pioceeuing, must consiuei the ciicumstances ielevant to the pioceeuing, incluuing
(a) the compaiative convenience anu expense foi the paities to the pioceeuing anu foi theii witnesses, in
litigating in the couit oi in any alteinative foium,
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
89
(b) the law to be applieu to issues in the pioceeuing,
(c) the uesiiability of avoiuing multiplicity of legal pioceeuings,
(u) the uesiiability of avoiuing conflicting uecisions in uiffeient couits,
(e) the enfoicement of an eventual juugment, anu
(f) the faii anu efficient woiking of the Canauian legal system as a whole.
! s. 11(2) is the opeiating section
K /8 ^) 38;24= k19@ 19D 38;24 =;<Z534 48 405 )H?$-l 01= 48 389=6@52 1CC 408=5 S13482= m 405D U-\, 48
389=6@52 405F
K -9@ 406= 6= 693C;=6>5 m 984 5B01;=46>5 m 6S 40525 125 84052 3623;F=41935= 25C5>194g 38;9=5C 319 216=5
405F
! If the law to be applieu is the law of BC, that a factoi in favoui of pioceeuing the action in BC
! If the law to be applieu is the law of China, maybe that's a factoi in favoui of China as the foium - maybe
it's not, maybe its balanceu by something else, but its possible
! BCSC woiks its way thiough those factois
! The fact that was of gieat significance in this case: the existence of the paiallel pioceeuing
! Because (a) we might get conflicting uecisions anu (b) it is ceitainly multiplicity of legal pioceeuings -
these aie 2 significant factois
! The aigument that Teck maue at tiial was that BC couits aie moving towaius uefeiiing to foieign couits
when those foieign couits have alieauy asseiteu juiisuiction - that is, a pioceeuing has been commenceu
anu they have alieauy ueciueu that they aie the most appiopiiate foium foi the action (Amchem)
! This is essentially what Sopinka saiu you shoulu be uoing in 4*:<%* foi anti-suit injunctions - that was
aigueu at the BCSC anu T} sciutinizeu the Washington state juugment piobably too closely anu saiu that
they uiffei, so he iefuseu to stay the BC action
! EE woulu not iegaiu the appioach that the BCSC took to the evaluation of the Washington state uecision in
teims of uiscietion as a mouel foi Amchem, you'ie supposeu to see if theie is a ieasonable basis
! Anu if I hau to say uo they have a piinciple of foium non-conveniens anu uo we have a piinciple, I woulu
have saiu yes, they'ie viitually iuentical but not iuentical
! BCSC uecision was: No, they ietaineu juiisuiction
! What the couit ieally objecteu to was the commencement of the action in Washington state one minute
aftei miunight - puie foium-shopping
^) )8;24 8S -JJ51C
! The case goes up to the BCCA
! The BCCA ueclineu to change the BCSC uecision as is common with appellate couits ieviewing
uiscietionaiy uecisions
! Biu he employ wiong piinciples. No, so theie is no ieason to oveiiule him
! With iespect to C}PTA, what BCCA says: you'ie iight, the C}PTA uoes couify the common law
! Theie aien't substantive changes to the common law
! The factois in s. 11(2) aie not exhaustive, anu fuitheimoie
! The BCCA also ueclines to give weight of any kinu foi the paiallel pioceeuings in Washington state - we
weien't going in that uiiection, she says
! What was put to the BCCA anu put again to SCC: what aie we going to uo if they, in Washington state, ieach
a juugment fiist.
! We have oui iecognition anu enfoicement iules
! BCCA says we uon't know what we'll uo
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
9u
5%:U W(*1":( M%0)+' K0; 3 K+(-;L' T";%&,&10%&' OaaT /))
! You get a veiy shoit SCC uecision
! In the enu what it uiu was stiike uown a stiaw-man (a fiist-in-time, fiist-in-iight)
! Teck put 2 aiguments, baseu on SCC juugments
! 0ne of the cases ielieu on was the 4*:<%* case, iespect theii uiscietionaiy uecision
! The seconu case ielieu on was the _! F(*$%- !";/'0&1% 3O GWTXK1"% @\ OaaP /)) case, stiong paiallel
action
! The thiiu case ielieu on was F&( 9,1"2 !":O 3O G+0) V(+6 !": OaaA /)) - iecognition anu enfoicement
of a non-pecuniaiy juugment
! The fiist aigument baseu on 4*:<%* - a iecognition aigument
! In Amchem, Sopinka } saiu you let the foieign couit ueciue fiist whethei oi not to stay the foieign
action
! Anu if the foieign couit has a ieasonable basis foi ueclining to stay the foieign action, then you uon't
issue an anti-suit injunction
! Yeah theie might be paiallel actions anu that's too bau, anu paities can figuie out what to uo
! Amchem iepiesents the SCC giving some iecognition to a foieign uiscietionaiy uecision
! In F&( 9,1"2, the SCC saiu we can iecognize anu enfoice foieign 989-pecuniaiy juugments (not just a
juugment in uamages, we can iecognize injunctions, we can iecognize uiscietionaiy oiueis equitable
oiueis)
! Putting Amcam anu Pio Swing - theie was a ieasonable aigument to put to the SCC to say you shoulu
iecognize the Washington state uecision to not stay
! They have a ieasonably similai uoctiine to oui foium non-conveniens, yes it's non-pecuniaiy anu yes
its inteilocutoiy but you can iecognize it - you have juiispiuuence, you have the founuations theie
! Amchem uiun't say they woulu iecognize the foieign juugment, they saiu we'll stay the BC action - so
an extension was iequiieu fiom that
! That was the fiist aigument: just iecognize it anu stay the BC action
! In the alteinative is that 405 1==524689 8S Z;26=@634689 <D 405 S8256Q9 38;24 6= 1 S13482 8S 8>52_05CF69Q
=6Q96i631935 69 405 =! GG 191CD=6= 8S S82;F 389>59659=
! Teck Cominco ceitainly put an alteinative aigument anu saiu that a factoi to be consiueieu foi the BC
couit, oi any couit faceu with this situation was that the foieign couit which has juiisuiction anu has
exeiciseu uiscietion - that that couit has maue a uecision about juiisuiction anu that ought to be f134825@
69 to the s. 11 analysis - not of oveiwhelming significance but a factoi of consiueiable weight analogous to
juiisuiction selection clauses as elaboiateu on anu uphelu in Pompey Inuustiies
K '85= 405 /)) 25=J89@ 48 408=5 12Q;F594=d
! Re Alteinative #1: SCC saiu no, we'ie not going to iecognize the Washington state uecision anu stay
oui own action
! Re Alteinative #2: SCC staits uiscussing section 11 - along the way, SCC says some things that aie of
some significance about the C}PTA:
! Paia 22: Section 11 is a complete couification of the common law test foi foium non-conveniens, it
aumits of no exceptions
! So once you have juiisuiction unuei the C}PTA, you have to go to s. 11 foi exeicising uiscietion anu
TBAT'S IT
! Theie is no othei souice foi the juiisuiction to exeicise uiscietion
! You have to consiuei the factois in s. 11
! Paia 2S: couit backs again into concept of comity
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
91
! Comity is not necessaiily seiveu by an automatic uefeiial to the fiist couit that asseits
juiisuiction (iefeience to the fiist alteinative aigument)
! Paia 24: SCC iejects the aigument (which was nevei maue) that piioi foieign asseition of
juiisuiction is an oveiiiuing anu ueteiminative factoi in the s. 11 analysis - that aigument wasn't
maue - SCC is knocking uown a stiaw man
! Couit goes on to say the cases ielieu on by Teck weie cleaily uiffeient cases but they inuicate a tienu of BC
to uefeiiing to foieign couits' asseition of juiisuiction
! Paia Su: blinu acceptance of a foieign couit's piioi asseition of juiisuiction is not goou
! So: as inteipieteu anu iesponueu to by the SCC, theie is ieally no uiffeience between alteinative aigument
#1 anu alteinative aigument #2
! SCC appaiently unueistanus both aiguments as iequiiing fiom the BC couits, an absolute uefeiial to the
foieign couit's uecision
! Wheie uoes that leave litigants in BC (anu othei C}PTA piovinces) when theie aie paiallel actions. (same
paities, same issues, uiffeient states)
! EE thinks it leaves open the aigument that was actually put
! The aigument that was actually put was that if you ieject alteinative #1, you go to section 11 anu the
fact that the foieign couit (the Washington couit) has ueciueu on ieasonable giounus (a ieasonable
facsimile of the foium non-conveniens uoctiine heie) that it is the most appiopiiate foium foi the
action - shoulu be given veiy gieat weight - N0T oveiwhelming, N0T ueteiminative, but veiy gieat
weight
! That was an aigument which was moueleu on the Pompey case - that's exactly the appioach that the
SCC has saiu local couits (Canauian couits) use foi juiisuiction selection clauses (if the paities have
agieeu to litigate somewheie else, well we give that veiy gieat weight in ueciuing if we'ie foium non-
conveniens) - it's Z;=4 a factoi, but its a =6Q96i63194 factoi
! EE thinks you can still make this aigument
! ^;4 64 6= 3C512 S28F 406= 31=5 4014 40525 6= 98 1<=8C;45 @5S525935 48 1 S8256Q9 @536=689 4014 64 6= 405
F8=4 1JJ28J26145 S82;F
K /8 _014 405Dj>5 25Z5345@ 6= i62=4 69 46F5 F519= @5S525935
! In a majoiity of cases, theie will be 2 actions penuing - theie will be applications to stay the actions but
theie won't be a uecision maue by eithei couit yet
! What Teck Cominco is saying is that once they've actually maue a uecision, you shoulu give them a little
moie weight because they've consiueieu it alieauy (using piinciples that aie similai to ouis)
! The iesult not to stay was a legitimate iesult - that's not the complaint
! The couit coulu have come to that conclusion even with piopei consiueiation of the aigument
! The complaint is that SCC uiun't actually come to giips with the aigument anu that's a little uisappointing
W+/B C%'(&0' K0; 3 M(&2)" \)" >&%;) OaGO /))
! A seivice ex juiis case
! Nostly about juiisuiction simplicitei but at the enu, Lebel } maue a few comments on foium non-
conveniens
! 1
)'
comment (paia 1uS): the buiuen of pioof is always on the uefenuant who iaises the question of the
appiopiiateness of the foium (EE uoesn't like this comment - thinks the allocation of the buiuen of pioof
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
92
on a uefenuant who is being calleu in to uefenu is inconsistent with the concept of comity that SCC elevates
so much)
! 2
*+
comment (paia 1u9): one of those paits of the juugment wheie he is ieally going fiom the Quebec civil
coue appioach to !"#24 '"'d5"';$'%$'8 anu not fiom the common law (EE suggests that this comment is
also somewhat inconsistent with the concept of comity which is so elevateu)
! In Quebec, the intiouuction of uiscietion is ielatively iecent
! Be says that iesoit to foium non-conveniens is exceptional, that once juiisuiction is piopeily assumeu
(teiiitoiial competence oi juiisuiction simplicitei), oiuinaiily, it shoulu be exeiciseu
! Why uoes EE object to this. - because it is inconsistent with the common law - the common law takes
a bioau appioach to juiisuiction simplicitei oi teiiitoiial competence - we go ieally wiue - we say
that ieal anu substantial connection, which is pietty minimal now, is sufficient foi us to have
juiisuiction - so once you go ieally wiue, you neeu to have uiscietion to naiiow it uown - you
shoulun't 82@69126CD be exeicising juiisuiction just because youi pioceuuial iules give it to you -
that's wheie uiscietion comes in
! So at common law, tiauitionally, foium non-conveniens is not exceptional - it is exeiciseu anu invokeu
pietty iegulaily anu theie aie piobably moie cases wheie the couit has saiu yes, you've got
juiisuiction but we'ie not the most appiopiiate foium foi the action
! Anu theie aie cases wheie foium non-conveniens has been uenieu so you coulu piobably ignoie that
"it's exceptional" comment but he saiu you aie fiee to iely on it
_! F(*$%- !";/'0&1% 3O GWTXK1"% @\ OaaP /))
! It's a shipping case involving a shipment by Pompey Inuustiies (venuoi) to the puichasei of a photo-
piocessoi equipment fiom Belgium to Seattle
! The caiiiei is the EC0-Line
! The bill of lauing is executeu in Fiance, maue in Fiance, to caiiy the caigo fiom Belgium to Washington
! Theie is a clause in it: |tjhe contiact eviuenceu by oi containeu in this bill of Lauing is goveineu by the law
of Belgium, anu any claim oi uispute aiising heieunuei oi in connection heiewith shall be ueteimineu by
the couits in Antweip anu no othei Couits."
! So the juiisuiction selecteu is Belgium
! Within Belgium, they have selecteu the couits in a paiticulai city anu they have uiafteu the clause so that
those couits have exclusive juiisuiction
! What happeneu.
! The caigo was tianspoiteu fiom Belgium but insteau of going all the way by sea to Seattle, it gets offloaueu
in Nontieal anu they put it on a tiain
! Tiains aie bumpiei than ships anu somehow the caigo is uamageu
! The action is biought by the venuoi (Pompey) against the caiiiei (Ecu Line) foi uamage to caigo
! The action foi uamages is commenceu in the Feueial Couit of Canaua (shippingmaiitime)
! The caiiiei Ecu Line applies foi a stay of pioceeuings - yes you have juiisuiction but you aie not foium
conveniens, you aie foium non-conveniens, because of the juiisuiction selecting clause in the contiact
K $0525 6= 1 >1C6@64D 6==;5 0525
! The aigument was that the contiact hau evapoiateu, it was fiustiateu - the ueviation fiustiateu the
contiact so theie was a funuamental bieach so juiisuiction selecting clause vanisheu with the iest of the
contiact
! That aigument was iejecteu by the SCC
K /)) k19@ 406= 6= 1 38FF89 _1D 8S @51C69Q _640 405=5 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q 3C1;=5= _059 40525 6= 1
<25130 12Q;F594l
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
9S
K V1D= 48 @51C _640 4014: 895 6= 48 =1D _5jCC C51>5 64 48 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 48
@5452F695g _0630 6= _014 405 38;24 =1D= 0525g 19@ 405 84052 6= 48 =1D _5jCC 42514 405F 1=
=5J12145 38942134=
! Eithei way, the couits aie not about to ueciue on the valiuity of the contiact when they aie at the
inteilocutoiy juiisuiction state
K /8 405 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q 3C1;=5 6= S8;9@ <D 405 38;24 48 01>5 =;2>6>5@ _0145>52 12Q;F594=
40525 125 89 405 F5264= 1<8;4 405 38942134
! The feueial couit hau applieu a uiffeient test foi ueciuing whethei oi not to stay the action - applieu the
R}R NcBonalu test (which is the test foi injunctions, which tiauitionally is not the test useu foi juiisuiction
selecting clauses)
K /)) 389=6@52= _054052 4014 _1= 405 1JJ28J26145 45=4 19@ @536@5= 4014 40525 6= 98 J8C63D 251=89 S82
@5J12469Q S82F 405 826Q691C 38FF89 C1_ 45=4 _0630 6= =54 8;4 69 G+%60<%&1)8 _0630 6= 405 C51@69Q
31=5 kJ121 Rl m ,9QC6=0 31=5
K "4 6= <1=631CCD S82;F 989N389>59659= m =1F5 S13482=
K "4 6= 1 F;C46NS1348261C 191CD=6= m D8; C88f 14 1CC 405 3623;F=41935=g 1CC 405 S13482= 4014 D8;
389=6@52 S82 S82;F 989N389>59659= 19@ D8; 1@@ 69 405 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q 3C1;=5 m 19@ 64 01=
>52D 051>D _56Q04
K $014j= _014 /)) 1JJ28>5= m 19@ 4059 05 1@@=: 6S 405 JC16946SSg 69 406= 31=5 ?8FJ5Dg 01= <28;Q04 19
134689 69 S5@521C 38;24 69 <25130 8S 1 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q 3C1;=5g 4059 405 <;2@59 6= 89 4014 J124D
48 =08_ _0D 05 =08;C@ 984 <5 05C@ 48 405 38942134 4014 _1= 95Q846145@
! So in a stay action, you've got the uefenuant in the action applying foi the stay (so they aie the plaintiff
in the stay action)
! The plaintiff in the oiiginal action is the uefenuant in the stay action - this is the guy who has to beai
the buiuen to show why he shoulu not be helu to the negotiateu contiact
K /8 _5 1JJCD 405 421@646891C 38FF89 C1_ 45=4 m _5 J;4 405 <;2@59 89 405 J124D _08 01= <28;Q04 405
134689 69 405 _289Q JC135 48 J52=;1@5 405 38;24 08_ ;9Z;=4 64 _8;C@ <5 48 08C@ 06F 48 06= <12Q169 m
4014j= <1=631CCD _014 64 38F5= @8_9 48
! All this is stiaightfoiwaiu (eveiything so fai is consistent with a long line of English anu Canauian cases) -
the pioblemcomplication is that (paia 21):
"In the lattei inquiiy, the buiuen is noimally on the uefenuant to show why a stay shoulu be gianteu, but
the piesence of a foium selection clause in the foimei is, in my view, sufficiently impoitant to waiiant a
uiffeient test, one wheie the staiting point is that paities shoulu be helu to theii baigain, anu wheie the
plaintiff has the buiuen of showing why a stay shoulu not be gianteu. I am not convinceu that a unifieu
appioach to foium non conveniens, wheie a choice of juiisuiction clause constitutes but one factoi to be
consiueieu, is piefeiable."
! This is causing us pioblems now - uoes he ieally mean that the uiscietion exeiciseu in the face of a
juiisuiction selecting clause is 5"4:1$.$1+ uiffeient, a sepaiate piocessanalysis, fiom foium non-
conveniens. 0i is he simply tiying to say that the buiuen of pioof is uiffeient, anu theie is a special weight
to be attacheu to that factoi.
! This is impoitant in light of what was saiu in Teck Cominco - s. 11 in the C}PTA is exhaustive, it aumits of
no exceptions
! This case is saying 2 things:
G! `5= 405 =4289Qd 45=4 S82 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q 3C1;=5= =46CC 1JJC65=g <;4 08_ @8 _5 S13482 64 69 48
=! GG 1S452 $53f )8F6938
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
94
K ,,j= 5BJC1914689: $53f )8F6938 _1= OaGGg 406= 31=5 _1= 89CD 1 S5_ D512= <5S825 4014g 405D
38;C@9j4 J8==6<CD 01>5 69459@5@ 48 8>522;C5 405 ?8FJ5D 31=5 _640 _014 405D =16@ 69 $53f
)8F6938
! You can cheiiy pick - people take that section anu they tiy to make something of it
2. ...
M(*%"0(/'O:) W(&$ 3 W)");1)" 4*%&1:)" 4''(:1)01(" (6 F&(6%''1(")+ >)'%B)++ K0; OaGO /))
! 12-paiagiaph SCC juugment which is inteinally inconsistent anu cieates even moie complications
! When leave to appeal was gianteu, most acauemics weie completely bemuseu - thought 0NCA hau uone a
pietty goou job
! The case is about a minoi league baseball team playing in 0ttawa in 2uu8
! It plays one season anu loses money anu it wants out
! It tiies to withuiaw fiom the league anu the league says no, if you get out, we will take youi $2uuK LC
that you hau to ueposit when you enteieu the league
! Rapiuz (the baseball team) sues the league in 0ntaiio seeking ueclaiatoiy ielief, contiact, toit, seeking
uamages
! The pioblem with biinging the action in 0ntaiio - theie is a contiact between the league anu Rapiuz anu it
contains choice of juiisuiction anu aibitiation clauses, anu a choice of law clause
! It ieaus: all uisputes with the league will be iesolveu in Noith Caiolina anu aie subject to aibitiation
! Theie is no submission in the contiact to the juiisuiction of any othei state, incluuing 0ntaiio - anu the
league wants the 0ntaiio couit to iespect that uecision
! Pait of the pioblem aiises because the league gets involveu in the 0ntaiio action to stait with, files a
statement of uefence anu pleauings but they both incluue a uefence on the meiits anu pleau the
juiisuiction selecting clauses
! Its not as if they hau completely abanuoneu theii juiisuictional objection anu submitteu on the meiits -
they've incluueu theii objection in theii pleauings
! They ultimately applieu unuei a paiticulai piovision in the iules of civil pioceuuie - they applieu unuei
DYO[YIQJI)J insteau of the piovision in the iules which most uefenuants use ('O YjO'(*%0<1"2 uealing
with seivice ex juiis)
! 0NCA says we have uiscietion even unuei 2u.u1(S)(a) to stay the 0ntaiio action - applies the Pompey case
! SCC gives leave to appeal
! SCC says we aie not going to comment on the submission issue iaiseu in the 0ntaiio couits
! We'ie not conceineu with the piopei inteipietation of the juiisuiction selecting clause oi the choice of law
oi aibitiation clauses
! The only question we'ie conceineu with in the SCC is the stay of the 0ntaiio action puisuant to C/+%
DYO[YIQJ, which ieaus: a uefenuant may move befoie a juuge to have an action stayeu oi uismisseu on the
giounu that the couit has no juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei of the action
! So cleaily theie is uiscietion involveu as well as juiisuictional iules - but "the couit has no juiisuiction
ovei the subject mattei of the action" sounus like a juiisuictional iule - we can't uo uivoice, we can't uo
contiacts, we can't uo claims ovei $2SK, we simply uon't have subject mattei juiisuiction - we uon't have
uiscietion - that's the one that is useu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
9S
! That's the one that is appioveu in paia 7 by SCC (NcLaughlin) - EE suggests that theie was no uoubt that
the 0N couits hau juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei of the action (contiact, toit, uamages) - no subject
mattei pioblems
! Paia 7 of the SCC NcLaughlin expiessly appioves the use of this iule (21.u1(S))
! V014 6= 405 6FJC6314689 8S 406=d ,, 4069f= _014 =05 6= @869Q 6= F8>69Q 405 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q
3C1;=5 S28F 405 @6=325468912D 5C5F594 8S 405 Z;26=@6346891C @536=689 6948 19 1<=8C;45 Z;26=@6346891C
@536=689
! `8; @89j4 01>5 19D Z;26=@634689 m 40525 6= 19 1Q255F594 48 C646Q145 =8F5_0525 5C=5 m 40525 6= 98
=;<Z534 F14452 Z;26=@634689
! Bowevei, she goes on to say that Pompey case is still applicable
! So what have we got. Confusion.
! What useu to be a ieally simple ciicumstance (a juiisuiction selecting clause) was just happily uealt with
unuei G+%60<%&1), then the Pompey case, has now become completely confusing
! Anu the BCCA is stiuggling with the ieconciliation of F(*$%-, 5%:U W(*1":( anu M(*%"0(/'
\1&(6(&:% 9-'0%*' !": 3 CR? W)$10)+ OaGG ^))-
! Action is biought in BC in bieach of an exclusive juiisuiction selecting clause selecting Quebec
! C}PTA case
! Couit goes to s. 11 (consistent with Teck, that's what you have to uo)
! Says we can stay this BC action $%.-$# because of the juiisuiction selecting clause oi because of s. 11
! The clause alone may be sufficient, it's not always necessaiy to ueteimine teiiitoiial competence - -2-Q
B"2 -*;$ ." <$.$#4%'$ .$##%."#%*1 5"4:$.$'5$ V%#8.> 1"&%5*11+> 7$!"#$ +"2 -*;$ *'+ H2#%8<%5.%"' ." 8.*+
! Then says: the ?8FJ5D c=4289Q 31;=5e 45=4 will only apply if the juiisuiction selecting clause was voiu
F&%-*)" 3 4-/' 5%:<"(+(21%' OaGO ^))-
! Action in BC in bieach of a juiisuiction selecting clause selecting Austiia
! Case in which counsel ielies on Teck anu aigues that the clauses can't be consiueieu
! The C}PTA is exhaustive anu theie is no mention in s. 11 of juiisuiction selecting clauses - so you can't
consiuei it
! Aigues that the viiofoice case is wiong because it faileu to consiuei Teck
! Couit says: No way, Teck says s. 11 is exhaustive, Pompey says it's a sepaiate inquiiy so I'm going to engage
in a common law inquiiy outsiue the C}PTA
K ,, 4069f= 69 ^) 405 38;24= 125 Q869Q 48 389469;5 48 ;=5 405 ?8FJ5D c=4289Q 31;=5e 45=4 m 405D 125
Q869Q 48 Q6>5 =6Q96i63194 <;4 984 @5452F69146>5 _56Q04 48 405 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q 3C1;=5 k<;4 405D
=08;C@9j4 @8 64l
! EE can't tell us what the basis is that they aie going to iely on to justify application of the Pompey case - EE
thinks it's not that uifficult, you just inject Pompey into s. 11 C}PTA anu factoi it in - s. 11 is not exhaustive
- it may be an exhaustive statement of the common law piinciple (in s. 11(1)) but s. 11(2) which sets out
the factois uoes not puipoit to be exhaustive anu even if it is an exhaustive list, we can fit it in to one of
those geneial factois listeu
! But cleaily we aie confuseu, anu Nomentous uoes not help - because Nomentous seems to tieat a
juiisuiction selecting clause as going to juiisuiction not uiscietion
! If you'ie in this position, finu a way to peisuaue the couits that they can still use Pompey
! The common law piovinces - no pioblem
! C}PTA piovinces like BC - you might have a challenge
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
96
.)&&1"20(" 3 ?(, W(&"1"2 W(&$ D[[[ >WW4
! Bas to uo with juiisuiction simplicitei (now teiiitoiial competence)
! Action in BC
! Plaintiffs suing uefenuants - women who have hau bieast implants manufactuieu by Bow Coining Coip
! Besiie is to have both a iesiuent anu non-iesiuent class of plaintiffs - non-iesiuents have to opt in
! BC was seiveu ex juiis
! BC aigues special juiisuiction - aigueu that 5>52D membei of plaintiff class has to satisfy the juiisuictional
iequiiements foi BC
! Pioblem with some of the non-iesiuent plaintiffs was that they nevei hau 19D connection with BC -
aigument by BC was: they uon't have a ieal anu substantial connection
! T} - ueciueu that BC uiu have juiisuiction simplicitei, that theie was a ieal anu substantial connection anu
it consisteu of the common issue - it wasn't a sufficient connection to give the BC couit juiisuiction
simplicitei
! Case goes up to BCCA
! 0ltimately BCCA ueciues that that common issue was a sufficient ieal anu substantial connection foi this
national class (foi the non-iesiuent plaintiffs to join the BC action)
! Bowevei theie is a long uiscussion of how things have to be auapteu in class actions - pioceuuie iules
have to be auapteu
! The appioach she takes is to move up a level in the M(&2/)&; ieasoning
! She goes back up to oiuei anu faiiness - we aie not conceineu with a mechanical application of iules - we
have to be flexible - we have to have faiiness
])&; 3 W)");) OaaR I^)-
! Bealt with both juiisuiction simplicitei anu foium non-conveniens
! The uefenuant is piesent in eveiy piovince
! What's the action about. - about the spiaying of heibiciue in NB affecting soluieis who suffei
consequences
! Waiu, who is a Nanitoba iesiuent, wants to biing a class action in Nanitoba
! Nanitoba is not NB
! Canaua uoesn't want the Nanitoba action to pioceeu - so theie aie objections
! Theie aie also class actions in othei piovinces as well
! Fiist question is whethei Nanitoba 01= juiisuiction, beaiing in minu that the allegeu toit occuiieu in NB
! So: uo we have juiisuiction.
K ?8694 F1@5 <D I#)- 6=: _5 =46CC 01>5 405 421@646891C 2;C5= 8J521469Q m 40525 6= 984069Q _289QK
691@F6==6<C5 _640 ;=69Q 405 421@646891C 2;C5= 48 Q6>5 ;= Z;26=@634689 =6FJC636452
! It uoesn't mattei wheie the allegeu toit occuiieu, Canaua is heie, the uefenuant is heie - piesence in the
juiisuiction give the NN couit juiisuiction simplicitei
K $059 1= S12 1= S82;F 989N389>59659= 6= 38935295@g 405 I#)- =6FJCD =1D= _5j25 Q869Q 48 1JJCD 405
;=;1C S13482= ;=69Q 405 -F305F 31=5g =54469Q 8;4 405 J26936JC5= Q8>52969Q S82;F 989N389>59569=
! We'ie going to apply the usual factois anu we'ie going to ueciue whethei Nanitoba is the most appiopiiate
foium foi the action
K -9@ 405 3C1== 134689 J8694: 406= 31=5 6=9j4 5>59 35246i65@ D54g 8935 64 F8>5= 89g "M 3623;F=41935=K
5>6@5935K_6495==5= 126=5 19@ _5 C5129 84052 S13482=g 4059 )191@1 319 F1f5 19 1JJC6314689 _640
405 31=5 F191Q5F594 Z;@Q5 C1452 m =8 D8;j25 984 i6B5@ _640 406= @536=689g 406= 6= 8;2 J25C6F6912D
@536=689
! We have juiisuiction, we aie the most appiopiiate foium foi the action anu you'ie not bounu by this, you
can make an application latei
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
97
%,)&+#"$"&# -#' ,#M&%),I,#$: "# ?,%/&#-I H('+I,#$/
?53;9612D H;@QF594=
@(/31(" 3 ^&%%*)" GEET U.
! Beals with the fiist of the conuitions foi iecognition anu enfoicement of a foieign juugment - iequiiement
that the foieign juugment be final anu conclusive
! This is not a iequiiementconuition that is often going to be an issue in a iecognition anu enfoicement
case, most of the cases have to uo with juiisuiction in the inteinational sense
! Continues to be the leauing case uefining what is meant by final anu conclusive
! Case in which Englanu was the foium foi iecognition anu enfoicement - was being askeu to iecognize a
Spanish juugment
! The point is: theie was a juugment fiom a Spanish couit - a specific kinu of juugment
! Theie is eviuence piesenteu to the BL uesciibing the natuie of the Spanish juugment
! The BL ueciueu that it was not a final anu conclusive juugment anu because it was not a final anu
conclusive juugment, it was not one that coulu be iecognizeu in Englanu
! BL gives us a uesciiption of the issue: (p. 4u1 of casebook)
"In oiuei to establish that final anu conclusive juugment has been pionounceu, it must be shown that the
couit by which it was pionounceu hau conclusively, finally anu foievei establisheu the existence of the
uebt of which it is sought to be maue conclusive in this countiy, so as to make the mattei ies juuicata
between the paities. If it is not conclusive in the same couit which pionounceu it, so that notwithstanuing
such a juugment the existence of the uebt may between the same paities be afteiwaius contesteu in that
couit"
! What he is saying: if you coulu go back to the same couit anu get that couit to mouify the juugment, it's not
conclusive - appaiently that is the status of the Spanish juugment
^(&B%' 3 91**("' GTGL -^/)
! The Albeita couit is being askeu to iecognize anu enfoice a juugment oiiginating in BC
! The uefenuant in the BC action hau been tempoiaiily piesent in BC visiting his sick wife
! Is Albeita going to iecognize anu enfoice the BC juugment when the uefenuant was only tempoiaiily in BC
- yes, pleauing piesence is sufficient foi iecognition anu enfoicement (juiisuiction in the inteinational
sense) in common law (M)<)&)"1)
! Common law uoes not iequiie a high level of connection foi juiisuiction in the inteinational sense
! The qualification being if you weie tiickeu into the juiisuiction, that piobably woulun't count
! Bomicile, iesiuence, etc - uon't neeu to go that fai
^1&'0 @)01(")+ >)"U (6 .(/'0(" 3 .(/'0(" GTTa ^))-
! The basic iequiiement foi submission oi attoinment: it must be voluntaiy
! The issue: what is "voluntaiy"
K $06= 31=5 45CC= ;=: D8; 955@9j4 01>5 "#$,#',' 48 =;<F64 m 64 319 Z;=4 01JJ59 _6408;4 D8; 134;1CCD
69459@69Q 48 =;<F64 48 405 Z;26=@634689 8S 405 S8256Q9 38;24
! This is a Texas uefault juugment - most of the cases in which theie is objection to iecognition anu
enfoicement aie uefault juugments
! It's not cleai whethei oi wheie the uefenuants in the Texas action weie seiveu - it's a complete uenial so
haiu to know what the facts weie
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
98
! The BC couit finus that the uefenuants in the Texas action hau somehow submitteu even though they
aigueu that they have not submitteu
! The aigument was that they submitteu thiough theii attoineys
! Theii aigument was, we uiu not instiuct oui attoineys to submit - we weie giving them instiuctions, but
we hau no intention of submitting
! Anu because we nevei instiucteu oui attoineys to submit to the juiisuiction of the Texas couit, we uiun't
submit
! BCCA says too bau, you uon't have to use expiess woius
! The question is 8<Z5346>5CD what uiu the uefenuants actually uo in the foieign pioceeuing.
! She uiun't say that one can nevei have paiticipateu in a foieign pioceeuing without having an attoiney
! She says if you have an attoiney acting in the foieign pioceeuing, if counsel is acting on youi behalf
completely without authoiity, we won't consiuei that submission but if youi counsel has authoiity anu has
uoes something in the foieign pioceeuing which constitutes submission, you will have submitteu
0B}ECTIvELY - it uepenus on what is uone not what the uefenuant thought he was uoing
W+1"0(" 3 ^(&; GTEO &#)-
! We consiuei this a common law uecision anu consiuei that this now iepiesents the common law iule in all
Canauian common law piovinces
! Common law action in 0ntaiio foi iecognition anu enfoicement of a juugment oiiginating in SA
! 0nuei South Afiican pioceuuie, thiee pieces of ieal piopeity weie seizeu in auvance of the juugment
(Naievapie-juugment gainishment analogy) - it is not unique to SA to at least fieeze the uefenuant's
piopeity in auvance of getting a juugment so that once one gets that juugment, one can get satisfaction of
the juugment fiom that piopeity
! Buiing the pioceeuing, the uefenuant was in 0ntaiio - happeneu to be someone who hau piacticeu law in
SA anu hau come to Canaua at some point
! The uefenuant was seiveu in Canaua
! So: can't aigue juiisuiction in the inteinational sense on the basis of piesence in SA, the only basis foi
iecognition anu enfoicement of the SA juugment (this is pie-Noiguaiu) is submission
K V014 01@ 405 @5S59@194 @895 69 405 /- J28355@69Qd
K U5 594525@ 19 1JJ5121935 <D F16C
K U5 01@ i6C5@ 1 984635 8S 694594689 48 @5S59@
K U5 01@ i6C5@ 19 1Si6@1>64 8S @5S5935 69 405 =;FF12D 4261C m 12Q;5= 4014 _1= i6C5@ _6408;4 06=
69=42;34689
! At no point in the SA pioceeuings hau he objecteu to the juiisuiction of the SA couit noi hau he contesteu
the valiuity of the seize of his ieal piopeity in SA in auvance of juugment
K V014 _1= 06= 12Q;F594d m 406= _1= @;25==g 64 _1= >8C;9412D m 405D =5675@ FD J28J524D 69 1@>1935
8S Z;@QF594g =8 4014 F1@5 FD J124636J14689 69 405 J28355@69Q= 69>8C;9412D m " @6@ 4014 69 @;25==
! Anu initially theie hau been some suggestions in olu case law that that might actually woik - but think
about it - if theie is a SA action anu no bouy seizes youi piopeity in auvance, anu you lose anu theie is a
pecuniaiy juugment, any piopeity you have theie is liable to be seizeu in satisfaction afteiwaius
! So why shoulu you get a fiee iiue just because piopeity is being in auvance. - that's the ieasoning of the
0ntaiio couit
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
99
K `8; 3194 =1D 406= _1= 69>8C;9412D Z;=4 <531;=5 D8;2 J28J524D _1= =5675@ 69 1@>1935 8S 405 4261C 89
405 F5264=
K U8_5>52g D8; F1Dg =1D= 405 &#)-g 14 38FF89 C1_g 69 =;30 1 =64;14689g 8<Z534 48 405 >1C6@64D 8S 405
=567;25 _6408;4 01>69Q =;<F6445@ 82 D8; 319 8<Z534 48 405 Z;26=@634689 8S 405 /- 38;24
! So if the uefenuant in the SA action hau eithei in peison oi thiough counsel saiu "you aie not entitleu to
seize my piopeity", oi "you have no juiisuiction," he woulu not have submitteu
! But he went on anu enteieu a uefence anu he lost
! Be was founu to have voluntaiily submitteu so the SA juugment was iecognizeu in 0NCA
M1;XS<1( !*$(&0%; W)& W( 3 5&1XN !"3%'0*%"0' K0; GTTY ^))-
! The status of the uecision in this case is a little unceitain at the moment - so uon't take this as gospel law
in BC anymoie - we uon't know
! BC uecision, BC iecognition anu enfoicement action foi a juugment fiom 0hio
! The plaintiff was an 0hio coipoiation, hau enteieu into a K with BC uefenuants to uelivei 7 high-enu cais
to 0hio
! 0ne cai gets ueliveieu - that's it, no othei cais weie ueliveieu
! Theie was a uispute unuei the contiact
! Theie was a juugment foi $SSSK 0S
! This is 199S - post Noieguaiu
! Biu the 0hio couit have juiisuiction.
! S giounus foi juiisuiction - piesence, submission, ieal anu substantial connection
! What hau happeneu in the 0hio pioceeuings - the uefenuants hau ietaineu 0hio attoineys
! Those 0hio attoineys hau aigueu that:
1. 0hio hau no juiisuiction unuei theii own iules
2. 0hio was not the most appiopiiate foium foi the action (uiscietionaiy issue)
S. The uefenuants in the 0hio action hau maue what aie calleu geneiically, technical aiguments - they
hau gone beyonu saying to the 0hio couit, you uon't have juiisuiction
K #8_: 69 )191@1g 405 38FF89 C1_ J28>6935=g _5 01>5 48 @536@5 Z;26=@634689 i62=4 <5S825 _5 @536@5
_054052 _5j25 405 F8=4 1JJ28J26145 S82;F S82 405 134689 <531;=5 405 C8Q63 6=: D8; 319j4 5B5236=5
@6=3254689 /"+%'' D8; 01>5 Z;26=@634689 m =8 D8; 01>5 48 @536@5 Z;26=@634689 i62=4
! So when you look at what the BC uefenuants hau uone in the 0hio pioceeuings - they hau saiu you uon't
have any juiisuiction, but then they hau saiu you'ie not the most appiopiiate foium foi the action -
exeicise youi uiscietion, anu then they hau maue technical aiguments
K pG 405D 38;C@ @8 m 38FF89 C1_ =1D=g D8; 319 12Q;5 4014 405 38;24 01= 98 Z;26=@634689 m D8; 01>59j4
=;<F6445@g <;4 405 F69;45 D8; =4124 1=f69Q 405 38;24 48 5B5236=5 @6=3254689 82 F1f5 19D 84052
82@52= _0630 25h;625 405 38;24 48 01>5 Z;26=@634689 48 F1f5 405 82@52g D8; 01>5 =;<F6445@ m D8;j>5
1=f5@ 405 38;24 48 @8 =8F54069Q S82 D8;g 19@ 405 F69;45 D8; 1=f 405 38;24 48 @8 =8F54069Q S82 D8;g
D8; 01>5 =;<F6445@
! Even if at that point, you withuiaw fiom the pioceeuings anu nevei even mention the meiits of the case,
you've submitteu because you've askeu the couit to uo something which C0NCEBES that the couit has
juiisuiction - that's the common law
! The BCCA iecognizes that that is the common law position anu iecognizes that the BC uefenuant hau gone
beyonu objecting to the juiisuiction simplicitei of the 0hio couit
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1uu
K ^))- @6=469Q;6=05= <54_559 1=f69Q 405 38;24 48 5B5236=5 64= @6=3254689 k48 @536@5 64 6= 984 405 F8=4
1JJ28J26145 S82;F S82 405 134689l 19@ 405 45309631C 12Q;F594=
! BCCA makes what was peiceiveu at the time to be a veiy helpful mouification of the common law iules foi
submission in this case
K ^))- C88f= 14 405 4059N^)/) 2;C5= 19@ @6=38>52= 4014 69 ^)g _5 01>5 2;C5= 8S 38;24 k%;C5 GP 19@ GLg
98_ %;C5 OGNE=8F54069Ql _0630 =1D D8; 319 8<Z534 48 405 Z;26=@634689 8S 405 ^) 38;24=g D8; 319 1=f
405 ^) 38;24 48 5B5236=5 64= @6=3254689 19@ =41D 64= J28355@69Q m 19@ %;C5 GL =1D= 19 1JJC6314689
F1@5 ;9@52 %;C5 GP 82 =;<=534689 A 8S 406= 2;C5g 69>8f69Q 405 @6=3254689 8S 406= 38;24g @85= 984
389=464;45 1335J41935 8S 405 Z;26=@634689 8S 405 38;24 m 4014j= 405 @8F5=463 38;24g <531;=5 _5 319j4
389428C &068
K V88@ H =1D= 4014 3019Q5= 405 38FF89 C1_g 14 C51=4 S82 ^)
K /8 05 =1D=g "jF Q869Q 48 ;=5 %;C5 GLkEl 19@ "jF Q869Q 48 =1D 4014 @5S59@194= 69 S8256Q9 134689= 01>5
405 =1F5 S255@8F 40525 1= @5S59@194= 01>5 69 ^)
! "9 S8256Q9 134689=g @5S59@194= 319:
1. &<Z534 48 Z;26=@634689
2. "9>8f5 405 @6=3254689 8S 405 S8256Q9 38;24
19@ ^) _6CC 984 389=6@52 405F 48 01>5 =;<F6445@
! This was helpful foi the uefenuants, because uefenuants veiy often assume (eiioneously) that they coulu
go in anu aigue juiisuiction anu invoke uiscietion anu still not have submitteu anu then they get caught
when they go home
! So Woou } in this case says you can uo both of those things anu we won't consiuei you to have submitteu
! But then he says you uiu submit because you maue technical aiguments - anu those assumeu that the
couit hau juiisuiction - soiiy you went too fai
K $05 J28<C5FK1F<6Q;64D 1<8;4 406= 31=5: _5 @89j4 01>5 %;C5 GLkEl 19DF825 m 98_ 64= 984 3C512
_054052 I6@N&068 6= 1 38FF89 C1_ @536=689 82 1 F6=41f59 @536=689 89 405 J124 8S 405 ^) 38;24 4014
%;C5 GLkEl 01@ 3019Q5@ 8;2 2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 2;C5=
K ,, 08J5= 4014 ^) 38;24= _6CC =1D 4014 I6@N&068 3019Q5@ 405 38FF89NC1_ 2;C5= <531;=5 6S 64j= 465@ 48
405 36>6C 2;C5=g M1;XS<1( 6= 98 C89Q52 Q88@ C1_
! Be veiy cautious if this situation comes up
K "S " @6@ @536@5 48 12Q;5 @6=3254689 1= _5CC 1= Z;26=@634689 19@ " C8=4g " _8;C@ =41D 19@ @5S59@ 89 405
F5264= <531;=5 84052_6=5 405 @5S59@194 _6CC _1Cf 1CC 8>52 F5 19@ Q54 _0145>52 05 _194=
K ^;4 @89j4 _1Cf 1_1D 19DF825 89 405 1==;FJ4689 4014 "jF 08F5NS255g " 01>59j4 =;<F6445@
M(&2/)&; !"3%'0*%"0' K0; 3 ?% 9)3(-% GTTa /))
! Albeita juugment, action foi iecognition anu enfoicement in BC
! Within Canaua, BC anu any othei Canauian piovinces must iecognize anu enfoice any othei Canauian
juugment if theie was a ieal anu substantial connection between the action anu the oiiginating couit
! Theie is no uoubt about the ieal anu substantial connection in Noiguaiu - the paities weie all theie, the
lanu was theie
! The uegiee of connection iequiieu by this new test (R&S connection) was an issue on the facts - but in
teims of going foiwaiu - how aie we going to apply this new test.
! Almost immeuiately aftei Noiguaiu, M('%' 3 9<(&%' >()0 >/1+;%&' (BCCA) - BC couit was being askeu to
iecognize anu enfoice an Alaska juugment
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1u1
! The uefence in the BC couit was: theie was no piesence, no submission, anu Noiguaiu uoes not apply
to non-Canauian juugments
! BC couits uiun't buy it
! The Alaska juugment was founu to be enfoiceable in BC
! 0n that veiy issue (uoes the Noigauiu iule extenu to non-Canauian juugments), theie was an appeal
to the SCC - SCC iefuseu leave to appeal
! Eveiyone assumeu that the Noiguaiu iule applieu to non-Canauian juugments as well as Canauian
juugments
! But then in 2uuS, we get >%)+' 3 9)+;)"<)
>%)+' 3 9)+;)"<) OaaP /))
! The juugment was a Floiiua juugment
! Eveiyone by this time assumeu that Noiguaiu applieu to non-Canauian juugments
! But the SCC wanteu to heai aiguments on it
K I82Q;12@ 389469;5= 48 1JJCD _640 405 <C5==69Q 8S /)) 69 406= 31=5 48 989N)191@619 19@ )191@619
Z;@QF594=
K U&V,\,%g ^51C= > /1C@1901 8J595@ 4069Q= ;J 1Q169 1 <64 19@ 40525 6= 98 )&#/$"$($"&#-.
8<C6Q14689 48 2538Q9675 989N)191@619 Z;@QF594= 405 _1D 40525 6= _640 25=J534 48 )191@619 31=5=
! Within Canaua, theie is a constitutional piinciple that says: you have to iecognize anothei Canauian
juugment if juiisuiction was piopeily anu appiopiiately assumeu
! We uon't have any constitutional obligation to iecognize non-Canauian juugments
M134=
! 0iiginates in 0ntaiio, staiting in 1981
! 2 0ntaiio couples puichase piopeity in Floiiua foi $4uuu
! At some point befoie 1984, these 0ntaiio iesiuents aie calleu by someone in Floiiua asking if they want to
sell, to which they agiee foi $8uuu
! Issues aiise as to which lot is being solu, they fixeu it up, but the constiuction company constiucteu the
builuing on the wiong lot
! The Floiiua puichaseis biought the action in Floiiua anu claimeu the cost of the lot, the cost of the
constiuction anu lost piofits
! The 0ntaiio iesiuents weie notifieu anu theie weie vaiious pioceeuingsamenumentsetc in the 0ntaiio
action anu one of the 0ntaiio uefenuants at one point fileu a uefence but nobouy else uiu anything
! 0ltimately, theie was a juugment in the Floiiua action anu the 0ntaiio uefenuants weie given an
oppoitunity to have the juugment set asiue
! They took legal auvice anu the 0ntaiio lawyei, bless his negligent little heait, auviseu them to N0T B0
ANYTBINu - he was unawaie of Noigauiu
! The juiy hau awaiueu the plaintiff $2uuK in lost piofits, $14K in expenses anu $SuK in punitive uamages -
this juugment, which the 0ntaiio uefenuants uiu nothing about was uiawing post-juugment inteiest at
12%
! By the time the case gets appealeu to SCC, this little lot that was bought foi $4K anu solu foi $8K tuineu
into a $1 million juugment by the Floiiua plaintiff
! The 0ntaiio plaintiffs nevei hau to pay because it was coveieu by the Lawyeis' Insuiance Funu
K /8: 405 /)) @6@ @536@5 4014 405 I82Q;12@ 2;C5 =08;C@ <5 5B459@5@ 48 #89N)191@619 Z;@QF594=
! Theie aie thiee ieasons foi juugment: majoiity anu 2 uissenting juugments
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1u2
! The pioblem with this case is that we aie no longei suie, howevei, in light of what each of the juugments
saiu, whethei these (iequiiements foi juiisuiction in the inteinational sense) aie inuepenuent
alteinatives, oi whethei the mouifieu Noiguaiu iule (foi non-Canauian juugments) somehow eats up the
othei two possible bases (piesence oi submission)
! Najoiity suggests that the Noiguaiu iule, as applieu to foieign juugments peihaps shoulu be somewhat
mouifieu (paia S2, SS, S7)
! They appeai to be saying that theie must be (paia S2) - "The "ieal anu substantial connection" test
|the Noiguaiu testj iequiies that a =6Q96i63194 connection exist between the cause of action anu the
foieign couit." - uoes this mean you have to iequiie a &#$*.$# connection between 0ntaiio anu Floiiua
than 0ntaiio anu BC.
"Fuitheimoie, a uefenuant can ieasonably be biought within the embiace of a foieign juiisuiction's
law wheie he oi she has paiticipateu in something of significance oi was actively involveu in that
foieign juiisuiction. A iC55469Q 82 25C146>5CD ;96FJ824194 3899534689 will not be enough to give a
foieign couit juiisuiction. The connection to the foieign juiisuiction must be a =;<=419461C one." - in
othei woius, the SCC in the majoiity juugment appeais to be upping the ante a little bit, iequiiing a
uREATER connection foi iecognition anu enfoicement of non-Canauian juugments
! So we NIuBT have two stanuaius: (1) the within Canaua stanuaiu foi ieal anu substantial connection
(if you have teiiitoiial competence, you'ie home fiee) anu then (2) a tightei connection foi non-
Canauian juugments
! In paia S7: "Theie aie conuitions to be met befoie a uomestic couit will enfoice a juugment fiom a
foieign juiisuiction. The enfoicing couit, in this case 0ntaiio, must ueteimine whethei the foieign
couit hau a ieal anu substantial connection to the action oi the paities, at least to the level establisheu
in Noiguaiu, supia." - okay so fai
"A ieal anu substantial connection is the 8>5226@69Q S13482 in the ueteimination of juiisuiction. The
piesence of moie of the tiauitional inuicia of juiisuiction (attoinment, agieement to submit, iesiuence
anu piesence in the foieign juiisuiction) will seive to <8C=452 the ieal anu substantial connection to
the action oi paities. Although such a connection is an impoitant factoi, paities to an action continue
to be fiee to select oi accept the juiisuiction in which theii uispute is to be iesolveu by attoining oi
agieeing to the juiisuiction of a foieign couit." - wtf he is saying. We ieau that as saying, piesence anu
submission aie gone - this is the only iule, you can use them to 7"18.$# the ieal anu substantial
connection, but this is the only test - the R+S connection is 0vERRIBINu, anu will be bolsteieu by
piesence oi submission
! Cleai majoiity of the SCC in 2uuS though that you coulun't apply the Noiguaiu iule stiaight up to non-
Canauian juugment
! If I weie acting foi a uefenuant anu the uefenuant is a juugment-uebtoi in a non-Canauian juiisuiction
anu I was looking foi some way of piociastinating uefenuing, I'u be aiguing this case - I'u be saying
minimal connection is not enough
! Theie hasn't been an SCC case that confiims that Beals is coiiect in its mouification of the oiuinaiy
iules in paiticulai the iules foi non-Canauian juugments - so you can aigue it
! Lebell } expiessly saiu Noiguaiu ieplaceu the tiauitional categoiies - but this was in uissent, so you
can ignoie him
! N0ST LIKELY F0R PRACTICE: assume the S tiauitional factois aie inuepenuent bases foi juiisuiction
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1uS
>&)1"0%:< 3 N('01/U GTTT ^))-
! Shoitly aftei Noiguaiu
! What is the point of incluuing this case.
! It is iepiesentative of the veiy small numbei of cases in which the BC couit has been unable to apply the
Noiguaiu iule - i.e. has saiu this connection between the action anu the foieign juiisuiction uoesn't even
meet the 4%'%424 thiesholu
! Theie haven't been veiy many of these, which gives us an iuea of just how minimum the thiesholu is foi
satisfaction of the Noiguaiu iule
! This is why the Beals case has some significance because it seems to suggest that foi non-Canauian cases,
the thiesholu woulu move up - we just haven't seen it yet
! This case involves a Texas action
! A BC couit is being askeu to iecognize anu enfoice a juugment in Texas
! Befenuant is a BC iesiuent
! Plaintiff is a Nevaua coipoiation (incoipoiateu in Nevaua, caiiying on business in BC)
! Bowevei, foi a shoit, S-month peiiou in 1996, its technical uevelopment activities weie locateu in Texas
! Ni. Kostiuk was allegeu by Biaintech to have uefameu Kostiuk
! Kostiuk hau posteu his opinions on a bulletin boaiu establisheu by a S
,+
paity
! Biaintech biought an action against him in Texas
! Kostiuk was nevei seiveu but appaiently he knew that an action hau been commenceu against him - but
he uiun't paiticipate
K U5 _1=9j4 J25=594g 19@ 05 @6@9j4 =;<F64
K /8 405 89CD <1=6= S82 F55469Q 405 Z;26=@634689 69 405 694529146891C =59=5 25h;625F594 S82
2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 _1= 4014 40525 _1= 1 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 <54_559 405
134689 19@ $5B1=
! The BCCA ueclines to iecognize anu enfoice the Texas action, holus that a uistinction has to be uiawn
between "puiposeful commeicial activity on the inteinet anu the meie tiansitoiy passive piesence in
cybeispace of the allegeu uefamatoiy mateiial" - i.e. BCCA consiueieu the Ameiican appioach to
uefamation in cybeispace anu consiueieu the Ameiican minimum contacts iule anu saiu: moueling oui
Noiguaiu appioach (ieal anu substantial connection) on an Ameiican appioach, this action uoesn't satisfy
the minimum level (this is acceptable) - .
! What woiiies EE is some piobably loose language: wheie he suggests that we can't iecognize anu enfoice
that Texas juugment because the Texas couit uiun't have juiisuiction unuei its own iules - TBAT'S WR0Nu
! The iules foi ueteimining whethei the foieign couit was a competent couit aie 00R iules, 00R stanuaius
- it's whethei WE think the Texas couit hau juiisuiction "in the inteinational sense"
! Theie was no eviuence that the allegeu uefamatoiy mateiial was ieau by anyone in Texas - so it may have
faileu on that
! This case is woith nohing because it's one of the few cases wheie theie was no ieal anu substantial
connection establisheu so it wasn't iecognizeu in oui couits
! We know foi ceitain that we apply the Noguaiu iules foi non-Canauian juugments
! But we uon't know whethei the ieality anu substantiality of the connection is -%&-$# foi non-Canauian
juugments
! It's veiy uifficult to ieau ieasons foi juugment anu tell because you can use the same foimula but when
you apply it, its a bit tightei
! But we aie still talking about ieal anu substantial connection - we aie not in any of the cases talking about
a "significant" connection
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1u4
@%, W)$ C%1"'/&)":% W(&$(&)01(" 3 4 G V&)"0 OaGO (]/)
u k$ #$*1 *'< 8278.*'.%*1 .$8. %' ?"#&2*#<( iecognizes that SCC has gone this way anu is not impiesseu
u It woulu be too upsetting to suuuenly have a new basis foi iecognition anu enfoicement
u We aie the only juiisuiction in the woilu that iecognizes 8" many juugments out of 8" many juiisuictions
on such a tenuous basis
u Auus that this is something that shoulu be uone by legislatuie - it is not a meie inciemental change, this is
a significant change which Pailiament shoulu ueal with, not the couits
u Also cites the Iiish SC juugment which iejecteu Noiguaiu
u So nobouy likes Noiguaiu, but alas we must ueal with it in Canaua
#89N?53;9612D H;@QF594=
F&( 9,1"2 !": 3 G+0) V(+6 OaaA /))
! Case in which SCC was askeu to iecognize anu enfoice an 0hio injunction
K /)) 6= 389=6@525@ 48 01>5 @536@5@ 48 3019Q5 405 C1_ m 4014 _5 38;C@ 98_ 2538Q9675 989NJ53;9612D
82@52= m 8S _0630 405 F8=4 S25h;594 895 4014 38F5= ;J 6= 1 S8256Q9 69Z;934689 k<;4 64 38;C@ <5
1984052 S82F 8S 5h;641<C5 82@52l
! Najoiity ueclines to iecognize anu enfoice the paiticulai injunction anu othei oiueis fiom the 0hio couit
foi a vaiiety of ieasons, one of which is that the couit founu it was not sufficiently ceitain
! Enfoicing an equitable oiuei iequiies moie Canauian juuicial iesouices than iecognizing anu enfoicing a
pecuniaiy juugments
! 0nce a pecuniaiy juugment is iecognizeu anu enfoiceu, theie is viitually nothing that you have to go back
to couit foi - all enfoicement is up to the juugment-cieuitoi of the conveiteu foieign juugment (now a
local juugment)
! It is the juugment cieuitoi that initiates the enfoicement mechanisms anu while some uo allow foi
juuicial oveisight, its not significantsubstantial
! Wheieas equitable oiueis uo iequiie juuicial oveisight anu if theie is a failuie to comply with an equitable
oiuei, you get contempt pioceeuings - so we have to be moie caieful about enfoicing equitable oiueis
than we uo pecuniaiy juugments
! This case has been applieu by the 0NCA in a case calleu T94 3 b%*%: D[Y[ S@W4
K /8: _5 @8 98_ 01>5 2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 2;C5= @5=J645 405 1F<6Q;64D 8S 405 F1Z8264D
Z;@QF594 69 ?28 /_69Q > ,C41 m _5 125 _6CC69Q 48 389=6@52 2538Q96769Q 19@ 59S82369Q 1 S8256Q9g 989N
J53;9612D 82@52
! @(0% 4014 '5=301FJ= H 6= =1D69Q 406= J12463;C12 69Z;934689 =08;C@ "(0 <5 2538Q9675@ 19@ 59S8235@ =8
=05 6= 984 01>69Q 48 4069f 1<8;4 405 @5416C= 8S 405 1JJC6314689 8S 405 2;C5 m =05 6= =54469Q 8;4 1
S21F5_82f 4014 =05 1==;F5= _6CC <5 i6CC5@ 69 69 C1452 31=5= <;4 =05 389=6@52=
! In teims of the bases foi iecognition anu enfoicement of a non-pecuniaiy oiuei, iefei to paia Su-S1:
Beschamps }: "This ieview ensuies that the Canauian couit uoes not extenu juuicial assistance if the
Canauian justice system woulu be useu in a mannei not available in stiictly uomestic litigation."
! So you stait with the tiauitional iules foi iecognition anu enfoicement anu then theie aie auu ons foi non-
pecuniaiy oiueis - we'ie not going to enfoice oiueis that we woulu nevei makeenfoice ouiselves (soit of
a iecipiocitymiiioi image)
! M13482= 48 )89=6@52: Relevant consiueiations may thus incluue the ciiteiia that guiue Canauian couits in
ciafting uomestic oiueis, such as: (paia Su)
! Aie the teims of the oiuei cleai anu specific enough to ensuie that the uefenuant will know what is
expecteu fiom him oi hei. - 01= 48 <5 3C512 8" ,$ <"'C. -*;$ ." 8:$521*.$ *7"2. ,-*. .-$ !"#$%&' H2<&$
4$*'. ,-$' -$ 4*<$ .-%8 "#<$#
! Is the oiuei limiteu in its scope anu uiu the oiiginating couit ietain the powei to issue fuithei oiueis.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1uS
! Is the enfoicement the least buiuensome iemeuy foi the Canauian justice system.
! Is the Canauian litigant exposeu to unfoieseen obligations.
! Aie any thiiu paities affecteu by the oiuei.
! Will the use of juuicial iesouices be consistent with what woulu be alloweu foi uomestic litigants.
! She uoes say that the non-pecuniaiy oiuei has to be final anu conclusive - but when you think about it,
non-pecuniaiy oiueis aie often inteilocutoiy oiueis
! NcLaughlin } uoes ueal with the iequiiement of finality in hei uissent: (paia 9S-96)
"Finality uemanus that a foieign oiuei establish an obligation that is complete anu uefineu. The obligation
neeu not be final in the sense of being the last possible step in the litigation piocess. Even obligations in
uebt may not be the last step; oiueis foi inteiest anu costs may often follow. But it must be final in the
sense of being i6B5@ 19@ @5i695@. $05 59S82369Q 38;24 319984 <5 1=f5@ 48 1@@ 82 =;<42134 S28F 405
8<C6Q14689! $05 82@52 F;=4 <5 38FJC545 19@ 984 69 955@ 8S S;4;25 5C1<8214689!
Claiity, which is closely ielateu to finality, iequiies that an oiuei be sufficiently unambiguous to be
enfoiceu. }ust as the enfoicing couit cannot be askeu to supplement the oiuei, so it cannot be askeu to
claiify ambiguous teims in the oiuei. The obligation to be enfoiceu must cleaily establish what is iequiieu
of the juuicial appaiatus in the enfoicing juiisuiction." - IW( ,$ 8-"21<'C. 7$ 1$!. ." &2$88
! Theie was a split in opinion in the finality anu claiity of this paiticulai oiuei
! In the b%*%U case, the 0NCA was able to examine the foieign oiuei which oiiginateu in Illinois anu founu
that it was cleai, piecise anu sufficiently final - iecognizeu anu enfoiceu the oiuei
! So: this is an option - Pio Swing case is a common law case - so this is a common law option
K /8: 14 38FF89 C1_g _5 01>5 405 5B459@5@ I82Q;12@ 2;C5 S82 S8256Q9 Z;@QF594= 1= _5CC 1= S82
)191@619 Z;@QF594= 19@ _5 01>5 ?28 /_69Qg _0630 1JJC65= 405 I82Q;12@ <1=6= S82 2538Q964689 19@
59S8235F594g 48 989NJ53;9612D Z;@QF594= _0630 k=6935 64 69>8C>5= 19 -F526319 82@52l 3C512CD
5B459@= 48 989N)191@619 Z;@QF594= 1= _5CC
K /8 405 38FF89 C1_ 2;C5= S82 2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 69 )191@1 125 251CCD 5B425F5CD
Q59528;= m 64jCC <5 405 2125 J53;9612D Z;@QF594 4014 D8; _6CC i69@ 1 )191@619 38;24 ;9_6CC69Q 48
2538Q9675 19@ 59S8235 ;9@52 I82Q;12@
K ,, =;QQ5=4= 40525 _6CC <5 F825 989NJ53;9612D 82@52= 4014 _5jCC 25Z534 48 2538Q9675K59S8235 <531;=5
405D 459@ 984 48 <5 1= 3C512 69 40562 452F= 1= J53;9612D 82@52=
! Remembei: you can ALWAYS fall back on the common law in any common law piovince in Canaua - the
legislation vaiies fiom piovince to piovince but the common law is unifoim
'5S5935=
>%)+' 3 9)+;<)") OaaP /))
! The 0ntaiio iesiuents hau bought lanu foi $4K solu it foi $8K, got a juugment that enueu up being ovei $1
million
! The 0ntaiio uefenuants iaiseu uefences, eveiy possible uefence they coulu
! So we have effectively got S common law uefences which aie uiscusseu in Beals
! Befence of fiauu
! Befence of bieach of natuial justice
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1u6
! Befence of contiaiy to public policy
! Foi the most pait, the SCC leaves those aieas of the existing common law uefences untoucheu
K V640 25=J534 48 S21;@ kJ121 LPl
! Najoi } thiows out some olu teiminology - says let's foiget about uiawing a uistinction between intiinsic
fiauu anu extiinsic fiauu
! Lets insteau talk about fiauu going to Z;26=@634689 8S 405 S8256Q9 38;24 anu fiauu going to the F5264= 8S
405 S8256Q9 @536=689
! Fiauu going to juiisuiction can always be iaiseu (paia S1-.)
! If somehow somebouy tiickeu the foieign couit into taking juiisuiction when, eithei, its own law
uiun't have juiisuiction (lying about facts, oi getting someone to sign something, etc.)
! It's the plaintiff who is tiicking the couit (not the couit committing fiauu)
! But fiauu going to the meiits can be iaiseu as a uefence only if the allegations aie new anu not the subject
of a piioi aujuuication (oi theie aie new anu mateiial facts not pieviously uiscoveiable with uue
uiligence) (paia S2)
! So you can't just sit back, let the plaintiff in the foieign action asseit things, not challenge them, anu
then claim fiauu
! You have to uo youi best anu you have to exeicise uue uiligence
! So theie have to be NEW facts that you coulun't possibly have uiscoveieu at the ielevant time anu you
shoulu have maue an attempt (that's wheie the uue uiligence comes in)
! 0nuei these new teims (fiauu going to juiisuiction, fiauu going to the meiits) theie was some unceitainty
in BC about whethei the uue uiligence iequiiement (which uoes apply to fiauu going to the meiits) also
applies to fiauu going to juiisuiction - shoulu you have hau to exeicise uue uiligence to uiscovei the fiauu
going to juiisuiction
! That issue was aigueu anu ueciueu in 2u1u case in BCCA:
K)"2 :)'% OaGa ^))-
! KB Lang applies in BC to have the Califoinia juugment iecognizeu anu enfoiceu in BC
! The couit consiueis the uefence of fiauu
! Finch } explains that extiinsic anu intiinsic fiauu aie 5>6@594612D 3145Q8265= - extiinsic woulu be
eviuence uiscoveieu aftei, intiinsic woulu be something that was pait of the consiueiation
! Fiauu going to juiisuiction anu fiauu going to the meiits aie =;<Z534 3145Q8265= - so uon't tiy to match
extiinsic anu intiinsic to juiisuiction anu meiits - foiget about making them analogous
! We'ie now uealing with the new categoiies
K M6930 H =1D= 4014 405 @;5 @6C6Q5935 25h;625F594 =54 8;4 69 ^51C= S82 S21;@ Q869Q 48 405 F5264=
@85=9j4 @62534CD 1JJCD 48 S21;@ Q869Q 48 Z;26=@634689 ^($ 40525 =08;C@ <5 >52D Q2514 25C;341935 69
405 2538Q96769Q 38;24 k^) 38;24l 2538Q96769Q 1 S8256Q9 Z;@QF594 48 i69@ 4014 405 S8256Q9 38;24 01@
98 Z;26=@634689
! So: theie is no uue uiligence, but it is a high thiesholu - it has to be veiy cleaily establisheu
! Then he goes on to ueal with the paiticulai allegation that the uefenuant iaiseu in the iecognition action
! The uefenuant allegeu that KB Lang's lawyeis hau lieu about hei iesiuence in the Califoinia couit
! Finch } examines the Califoinia uecision anu says that was ielevant to the uiscietionaiy uecision in the
Califoinia couit - theie is juiisuiction (teiiitoiial competence) anu theie is uiscietion
! Anu in teims of what the Califoinia couit consiueieu, the auuiess was not ielevant to teiiitoiial
competence, the auuiess was ielevant only in the foium non-conveniens component of the juiisuiction
uecision - he says that belongs to the NERITS, that's not juiisuictional foi puiposes of this uefence
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1u7
! Foium non-conveniens is consiueiation on the meiits, which is consistent with oui iecognition anu
enfoicement iule anu so it is subject to the uue uiligence iequiiements
! Anu he uoes not finu that uue uiligence was establisheu in this paiticulai case
K $06= @536=689 5C1<82145= 19@ 5BJC169= 08_ 405 S21;@ @5S5935 8J52145= 69 ^)
>%)+' 3 9)+;<)") OaaP /))
! Buiuen is on the uefenuant (same as fiauu)
! SCC is conceineu that theie shoulu be heighteneu sciutiny to ensuie faii piocess in the foieign juiisuiction
! Remembei the uiffeiences in the juugments in Beals - LeBel } was uissenting - he wanteu a completely
uiffeient iule foi foieign juugments
! Basically, the appioach of the SCC is that we'ie not suie if we can tiust non-Canauian juiisuictions, so theie
is heighteneu sciutiny
! What aie we looking foi when this uefence is iaiseu. - we'ie looking to ensuie that theie was nothing that
occuiieu in the foieign action which is 3894212D 48 )191@619 984689= 8S S;9@1F5941C Z;=4635
! Faii piocess is one that ieasonably guaiantees basic pioceuuial safeguaius such as juuicial inuepenuence,
faii ethical iules (EE suggests that the olu aiguments about natuial justice have to uo with getting youi
uay in couit, getting an oppoitunity to be heaiu, getting notice of the action, etc.) - so funuamental justice
is oui stanuaiu (it's pioceuuial)
! At that point, Najoi } looks at the Floiiua legal system geneially anu says it's not so uiffeient, it's pietty
similai to the Canauian system, so I uon't think theie was a bieach of natuial justice in the Floiiua action
! This is the point on which Binnie } anu Iaccabucci } uissent - they look at the Floiiua legal system as a
whole but they also focus on what happeneu in .-%8 :*#.%521*# action
! They finu that in these paiticulai pioceeuings, theie was a bieach of natuial justice
! They finu theie wasn't piopei notification of the uefenuants in the Floiiua action, they kept staiting
anu iestaiting the action, moving it fiom county to county, etc.
! The uissent finus that theie was a bieach of natuial justice in the Floiiua pioceeuings
! EE thinks Binnie anu Iaccabucci is coiiect in theii focus (whethei you agiee with theii finuing oi not is
iiielevant) - EE thinks the question is whethei theie was a bieach of natuial justice in TBIS
PARTIC0LAR ACTI0N because it is this paiticulai action that is in issue - it's not the Floiiua legal
system geneially - you can have a faii legal system on the whole, but things can go wiong in inuiviuual
cases
! So EE suggests if you aie counsel invoking the uefence of bieach of natuial justice, I woulu say "what
happeneu heie."
! If you'ie acting foi the plaintiff, then aigue the majoiity uecision
! We haven't hau a case subsequent to this which actually iaises this issue - but it is a ieal issue
! Najoi } leaves uefence of contiaiy to public policy intact, sticks with the tiauitional view
! Is the foieign law is contiaiy to basic moiality.
! Issue in this paiticulai case was the exoibitant uamages anu he uoes not finu that exoibitant uamages aie
contiaiy to foium public policy anu he is veiy ieluctant to use the contiaiy to foium public policy uefence
because when you uo that, you aie effectively conuemning the foieign law - you'ie saying the foieign law
tuins oui stomach - it's contiaiy to oui funuamental notions
! Anu juuges have a ieluctance to saying that about the laws of othei legal systems
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1u8
V(;;)&; 3 V&)- GERa (]U.
! It uemonstiates extieme self-iestiaint on English couits
! Was being askeu to iecognize a Fiench juugment against an English uefenuant
! The Fiench couit got the English law that it was applying wiong
! English couit saiu, nope, #$8 H2<%5*.* - not a uefence on the meiits, we aie not going to sit as an appeal
couit on the meiits of the foieign uecision
! So: that is N0T a common law uefence
)C1== -34689=
W/&&1% 3 M):?(")+;L' C%'0)/&)"0' OaaY &#)-
! Bas moie oi less been appioveu by SCC
! Class action case
! Question in issue: uo we have any special iules that we neeu to use in connection with iecognition anu
enfoicement in auuition to the Noiguaiu iule.
! Class action in Illinois against NacBonalu's
! It has to uo with the availability of piizes at NacBonalu's
! Theie is a national class, anu Canauians aie incluueu
! Cuiiie lives in 0ntaiio, he uiu not opt out of the class action aftei the settlement was ieacheu in the class
action in Illinois (aftei a settlement is ieacheu, you still have an oppoitunity to opt out)
! What's ielevant to Cuiiie opting out - he wants to sue NacBonalu's in 0ntaiio
! The question is: is he bounu by the Illinois action. - he is pait of the plaintiff class theie but he uiun't
paiticipate
! Question foi 0NCA: aie we going to iecognize anu enfoice that Illinois settlementjuugment.
! 0NCA helu that it woulu not iecognize TBIS Illinois class action juugment as binuing on Cuiiie
! 0NCA ceitainly says that Illinois hau a ieal anu substantial connection to the cause of action - that wasn't
the issue
! So if that weie the only basis foi iecognition anu enfoicement, the Illinois juugment woulu be iecognizeu
! But Shaip } says: we have to consiuei 0TBER conuitionsciicumstances when askeu to iecognize a foieign
class action juugment, especially in a case in which the plaintiff uoesn't want it iecognizeu anu enfoiceu -
we'ie not talking about the uefenuant heie - that's the uifficulty in class actions - its the plaintiff who was
incluueu in the foieign action who now says, I uon't want to be bounu by that, I want to biing my own
action heie - it's not the uefenuant saying No, no, no
! Shaip } sets out some ciiteiia foi the iecognition anu enfoicement of foieign class actions (paia Su)
! We stait with the ieal anu substantial connection oi the tiauitional bases
! You then have to ask, in auuition, whethei the non-iesiuent plaintiffs weie auequately iepiesenteu anu
also whethei those non-iesiuent plaintiffs weie accoiueu pioceuuial faiiness
! In paiticulai, weie the non-iesiuent plaintiffs in the foieign class action (like Cuiiie) piopeily notifieu
about theii options
! So: what Shaip } has uone is builu a couple of uefences (maybe a bieach of natuial justice uefence) into the
iecognition iule foi class actions - pioceuuial faiiness, auequate notice, uiu he have his uay in couit, uiu
he have an "::"#.2'%.+ to opt out
! Looking at the notice that was given in Canaua in the Illinois action against NacBonalu's, Shaip } finus it
was not auequate
! So even if Cuiiie hau seen it, he likely woulun't have unueistoou it (it was auveitiseu in NcLean's
magazine)
! The calculations by the "notice expeits" was that it woulun't have ieacheu much of the population of
Canaua
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1u9
! It just wasn't auequate to notify the Canauian population
! So: we've got a special iecognition iule foi class actions
! The SCC in the K($1"% case (sp.):
! LeBel } agiees with Cuiiie
! So Cuiiie piobably is the case that best iepiesents the iecognition anu enfoicement iule foi foieign class
actions
! In Canaua, we fight it out at the juiisuictional level
/414;482D %5Q6F5=
W%"0&)+ V/)&)"0- 5&/'0 3 ?% K/:) GTTY #V$%
! Point of this case: the T} in this case uiu his uamneuest to ieau Noiguaiu in anu hau to conceue that while
he coulu uo it in one pait, it was negativeu by the uefences that the uefenuant can iaise in the ielevant
section of the NWT equivalent of the C0EA
K /8 405 I82Q;12@ <1=6= S82 2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 6= 984 1>16C1<C5 ;9@52 405 )&,-
! But if you can iely on the tiauitional iules, piesence oi submission, anu if the juugment is fiom a
iecipiocating state, then the C0EA is a goou bet
! But you can see that it is going to be infiequently useu because it's just not available - youi juugments
aien't going to be eligible
! All the cases ueal with the use of the C0EA oi its equivalent in the othei piovinces - it is a common statute
in all the piovinces
! What these cases uo is limit the availability of the C0EA Pait 2: Recipiocal Enfoicement of Couit 0iueis
! NWT case
! Impoitant limitations
! This case is iepiesentative of a numbei of cases in which the juugment cieuitoi has tiieu to peisuaue the
couit that the Noiguaiu common law iecognition iule shoulu be incoipoiateu into the statute
! Anu in all cases like this one, the attempt has been unsuccessful - it's not that the couits aien't willing to
tiy but these statutes (the iecipiocal enfoicement of juugment statutes) typically have the common law
uefences built in, so even if you can inteipiet Noiguaiu in a bioau inteipietation at one point in the
statute, it's going to get cancelleu out because the uefenuant can iaise a common law uefence - you uiun't
have juiisuiction because I wasn't seiveu theie, I wasn't piesent theie, I uiun't submit etc.
! So this is a ieal limitation on the C0EA in BC
! It uoesn't incoipoiate Noiguaiu
K "4j= 5SS5346>5CD J25NI82Q;12@ 38FF89 C1_ 2;C5= S82 2538Q964689 19@ 59S8235F594 8S Z;@QF594= m
405 1@>1941Q5 <569Q 6= 4014 64 6= 25Q6=4214689g D8; @89j4 01>5 48 =4124 19 134689 m 4014 _1= 405 _08C5
J8694 8S 64
C% W)&&1:U G'0)0%' )"; b(/"2 GTER /])-
! Illustiates the fact that once you put conflicts iules into a statute, the couits have to inteipiet the statutoiy
language
M134=
! Theie was a football playei who came to BC to play foi the Lions
! Be gets seiveu with piocess while he is heie anu the plaintiff in BC wants to get this juugment iecognizeu
anu enfoiceu in SK unuei .-$%# Recipiocal Enfoicement legislation
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
11u
! SKCA says we uon't consiuei them to have hau juiisuiction within the meaning of the statute - tempoiaiy
piesence
! So: whatevei the oiiginal intent of the legislatuies, the iules may get changeu once they aie couifieu
because couits have ioom to inteipiet them
! SK juugment - so we'ie not too conceineu with them
S,%" 3 C(:U%01"6( !": OaaE ^))-
! A little moie iestiictive
! It cuts off at the pass a potential expansion of the pool of foieign juugments which coulu be conveiteu to
BC juugments unuei the C0EA
! We have enteieu into iecipiocal aiiangements with a numbei of foi juiisuiction but not that many
! When you go piovince to piovince howevei, uiffeient piovincial goveinments have enteieu into iecipiocal
aiiangements with <%!!$#$'. foieign juiisuictions
! So what paities began to uo until this case was say: I've got a Nevaua juugment anu Nv is not a
iecipiocating state with BC - anu BC is wheie I want to enfoice the juugment because the uefenuant has
assets theie
! But lets say Nv has a iecipiocating agieement with AB, so why uon't I iegistei my Nv juugment in AB - the
catch is the juugment uebtoi has no assets in AB
! AB is a iecipiocating juiisuiction with BC (all Canauian piovinces except QC)
! So you get 3016969Q - I iegistei my Nv juugment in AB, anu then I take my AB juugment anu iegistei it in
BC
! This happeneu - theie aie cases wheie it happeneu
! The point is: nobouy objecteu
! Then finally in this case, the uefenuant objecteu - you can't uo that unuei C0EA, that's not what was
intenueu to be uone
! Anu the BCCA buys it
! They inteipiet the statute anu they say, we uiun't intenu that - the stat wasn't intenueu to iecognize
juugments iecognizeu by othei juugments
! We have to inteipiet the C0EA to being limiteu to iecognition anu enfoicement of 0RIuINAL }0BuNENTS
! So the loophole was cut off at the pass
-2<6421C -_12@=
9:<&%0%& 3 V)'*): !": GTTO &#)-
! uoou example of a case in which 2 of the possible uefences aie iaiseu anu uiscusseu
! Theie was a K between a ueoigia, 0S coipoiation anu a Canauian coipoiation anu it's 0S subsiuiaiy
! Theie is an aibitiation clause in the contiact, which is invokeu
! Theie is aibitiation in Atlanta as is iequiieu by the aibitiation clause
! The Canauian coipoiation pays little attention to the aibitiation anu uoesn't make any objections
! The aibitiation awaiu is then fileu in the uA couits as is possible in many legal systems so it becomes
enfoiceable as a juugment of the uA couit
! Theie is some paiticipation of the Canauian uefenuant in appealing that but they lose
! The uA coipoiation applies in 0ntaiio foi iecognition anu enfoicement of the aibitial awaiu - not the uA
juugment, but the aibitial awaiu

'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
111
! S objections aie iaiseu to the iecognition anu enfoicement piocess in 0ntaiio by the 0ntaiio uefenuant
1. 1
)'
aigument: the uA plaintiff can't biing an action foi iecognition anu enfoicement of the aibitiation
awaiu because the iegistiation in uA has become a juugment foi the aibitial awaiu
2. 2
*+
aigument has to uo with natuial justice
S. S
,+
aigument has to uo with the public policy uefence
! All S uefences aie availablecoulu be iaiseu in BC but the uisposition of those aiguments anu the
uiscussion of them woulu likely be the same in BC
K M62=4 8S 1CC: I52Q52 8S 405 12<64214689 19@ 405 Z;@QF594
! This is a question foi the foium, we uon't caie what uA says (though we may consiuei it) - its "2#
uecision
! Boes 0ntaiioBC consiuei that the foieign cause of actionfoieign aibitiation meigeu into the
juugment such that you can't go uiiectly to iecognition anu enfoicement of the aibitiation anymoie -
you have to go to the juugmnet
! This is similai to uomestic law: youi cause of action meiges in the juugment - #$8 H2<%5*.* - you can't
biing anothei action on the oiiginal cause of action if theie has been a juugment on it
! That common law uomestic iule has nevei been applieu in the conflicts context
! So if you have a foieign cause of action anu you have a foieign juugment, in theoiy at common law, you
can still biing an action heie again on the oiiginal cause of action
! So if you lost somewheie else, you can choose to biing an action on the oiiginal cause of action again
! When might you want to uo this. You might have wanteu to uo it befoie Noiguaiu, when we woulun't
have iecognizeu oi enfoiceu a foieign juugment because of the naiiow tiauitional iules - so you might
have hau to biing anothei action on the oiiginal cause of action - anu you coulu have uone it
! Same aigument is maue in connection with the aibitiation - you can't aigue the aibitiation as a new
cause of action
! The couit says: No - the meigei iule simply uoesn't apply in a conflicts context
! So the uA coipoiation is entitleu to continue with the application foi iecognition anu enfoicement of
the aibitiation awaiu in uA
K /5389@: ^25130 8S 914;21C Z;=4635
K Befence of bieach of natuial justice is pioviueu foi in oui statute as it is in 0ntaiio
K The aigument foi bieach of natuial justice is baseu on the fact that the aibitiatoi uiun't give ieasons
foi the awaiu
K The 0NCA says: in piinciple, that's piobably a pietty goou uefence - how uo you know how to ueal
with the meiits of the awaiu in uA in teims of appealing it, etc., unless you have ieasons - you neeu to
know why the aibitiatoi came to the juugment that he uiu
K So: absence of ieasons coulu inueeu be founu to be a bieach of natuial justice
K 0n the facts heie, the 0NCA uiu not finu a bieach of natuial justice
K But it C00LB BE - it's a goou uefence
K $062@: ^25130 8S S8256Q9 J;<C63 J8C63D
! This is a iesiuual uefence to ANYTBINu univeisally - eveiy legal system in the woilu ietains this
iesiuual, last bit of uiscietion - they uon't want to have to be in the position of having to enfoice a
juugment which is inconsistent with theii funuamental values
! The basis foi the aigument in this case: that acceleiation of ioyalty payments, which hau occuiieu
unuei the contiact, was inconsistent with oui funuamental piinciples
! In teims of the uiscussion of the uefence in teims of the iecognition anu enfoicement of aibitiation
awaius, the uiscussion paiallels the common law uefence foi iecognition anu enfoicement of a foieign
juugment - i.e. it's naiiow - theie's got to be something inconsistent with oui funuamental values
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
112
! 0NCA finus that acceleiation of ioyalty payments coulun't be saiu to be so ueploiable anu uistasteful
that it is inconsistent with 0ntaiio's funuamental values
! The case illustiates that uefences 125 available to iecognition anu enfoicement of foieign aibitiation
! No iecipiocity is iequiieu - we apply the statutes to aibitiations, wheievei in the woilu they occui
! You'ie going to want to use the statutes foi aibitiation awaius (insteau of the common law oi the C0EA)
! You'ie going to want to use the EC}BA foi any Canauian juugment - uon't even consiuei using the common
law
! C0EA - meh, if you have to

! Bottom line: it is not consiueieu to be an abuse of piocess of the couit, i.e., it is peimitteu, to use these
moues of iecognition anu enfoicement in the alteinative, cumulatively, consecutively - you can go fiom
one to the othei, anu you can *1,*+8 uiop back to the common law
! The common law iecognition anu enfoicement is the uefault iegime - you can *1,*+8 use it if you choose
! If you have a Canauian juugment, go uiiectly to the EC}BA (ieau uefinition to see if you have the iight kinu
of juugment)
! Theie aie viitually no uefences
! You will get a Canauian juugment iecognizeu anu enfoiceu (subject to uiiections, in s. 6) unuei the
EC}BA
! Because you can go uiiectly to EC}BA, you can foiget about the C0EA anu common law
! Pecuniaiy oi non-pecuniaiy, possibly something else
! Blinu full faith anu cieuit
! If you have a non-Canauian pecuniaiy juugment fiom one of the listeu iecipiocating juiisuictions, go
uiiectly to the C0EA - simple iegistiation
! Easy
! Inexpensive
! Quick - shoit peiiou alloweu foi uefenuant to object
! But that's a small pool of juiisuictions (8 Ameiican states, Austialia, 0K, ueimany, Austiia)
! If youi oiiginal juugment is fiom one of these states, go foi it
! Foi eveiything else, you have to use common law
! To sum up: foi all except Canauian juugments, you will piobably want to go to the common law in the enu
because in the C0EA, you get a simplifieu pioceuuie, but you uon't get the Noiguaiu iule - anu that limits
the numbei of juugments that aie going to be iegistiable
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
11S
H(%"/'")$"&#: "# %,I -)$"&#/
>&101'< 9(/0< 46&1:) W( 3 W(*$)"<1) ;% M(:)*B1P/% GETP (]U.
! Set the common law iule in place
! 189S BL case - litigation in Englanu
! The litigation in Englanu is ielateu to immovable piopeity locateu in SA
K $05 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D 389=6=45@ 8S F695= 19@ F69521C= kF695= 19@ F69521C= 125 3C1==6i65@
<D /- 1= 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D
K '85= 405 ,9QC6=0 38;24= 01>5 Z;26=@634689 48 0512 1 3C16F 25C1469Q 48 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D 8;4=6@5
,9QC19@d
M134=
! The claim biought in Englanu was that the uefenuant hau wiongfully taken possession of theii mines anu
mineials anu ejecteu the plaintiffs
! The plaintiff sought a ueclaiation that they weie iightfully entitleu to these mines anu mineials
! The uefence iaiseu by the uefenuants in the English action: you uon't have juiisuiction (teiiitoiial
competence) ovei foieign lanu
! The BL hau to ueciue this issue caiefully because of iecent legislation in Englanu
K U. @536@5@ 40525 6= 98 Z;=46i6314689 S82 19 ,9QC6=0 38;24 48 41f5 Z;26=@634689 8>52 464C5 48 S8256Q9
C19@ 82 134689= 69 425=J1== 48 S8256Q9 C19@ <531;=5 425=J1== 25h;625= 1 @5452F6914689 8S 464C5
! Why uiu the English couit uecline to take juiisuiction ovei immovables locateu outsiue Englanu. -
because it woulu be pointless: we coulu take juiisuiction anu give the iemeuies but how can we stop
the uefenuant going back to the place wheie the immovable is locateu anu unuoing what we've uone.
- we can't enfoice it
! Same ieasoning when you aie gianting an injunctionspecific peifoimance
! Nocambique iule is applieu whenevei necessaiy
.%'$%&1;%' .(0%+' K0; 3 M/601=);% GTRT (]U.
! The BL ieau the aiguments as inviting the BL to oveituin the Nocambique iule
! Action biought in toit - conspiiacy
! Plaintiffs claimeu uamages foi conspiiacy to tiespass
! It was fiameu as an in peisonam action
K U. @536@5@ 405D 125 42D69Q 48 Q54 128;9@ I831F<6h;5 =8 _5 125 Q869Q 48 25389=6@52 I831F<6h;5
M134=
! Botels locateu in Cypiess
! Botels aie built on uiit, uiit is cleaily lanu, lanu is always an immovable
! No uiscussion of whethei it is immovable oi movable
! Lanu = immovable
! The hotels weie still owneu by uieeks
! But they weie now locateu in the Tuikish half of Cypiess
! So the oiiginal uieek owneis of the hotels aie in Englanu anu they uiscovei that theie is a company in
Englanu anu it is booking touis in theii hotels - they aie unhappy about this
! They attempt to get uamages anu an accounting of piofits anu an injunction in T0RT
%51=8969Q
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
114
! BL says no, you'ie just uiessing it up tiying to get aiounu Nocambique so we will ieconsiuei Nocambique
! By 1979, the BL hau announceu that they can oveituin theii own uecisions - so they hau the ability to uo
this
! Theie is nothing to suppoit this aigument that we shoulu oveituin Nocambique which has stoou since
189S except ieason, logic, justice anu the weight of acauemic opinion
! Reasons not to oveituin:
! 1. All the common law countiies aie using Nocambique, think what we woulu uo to theii
juiispiuuence if we oveituin Nocambique (iolls eyes, EE thinks we coulu have uealt with that - not a
big ueal)
! 2. This woulu be a mattei of some uelicacy - it shoulu be left to the legislatuie - it is not oui business
to make law
! S. No longei a goou ieason but it was at the time: if we weie to oveituin Nocambique, that woulu
piouuce a lot of foium shopping - a lot of people woulu come to Englanu to complain about what is
happening in othei juiisuictions - anu we aie not ieauy to ueal with that yet because the uoctiine of
foium non-conveniens is still in the piocess of being uevelopeu - this uoesn't make sense now
! 4. Nothing has changeu since 189S (no ielevant ciicumstances have changeu since 189S):
! Lanu is still theie
! We aie still heie
! We still uon't have powei to enfoice oui oiueis
K /&: 405 I831F<6h;5 2;C5 =419@= 69 ,9QC19@ 1= S12 1= 38FF89 C1_ 6= 38935295@
V(;+%- 3 W(+%' GTEE &#U)
K #84 1 >52D 1;408264146>5 31=5 kC8_52 38;24 69 &#g 984 ^)l <;4 64 F6Q04 69@63145 1 h;1C6i6314689K1
)191@619 h;1C6i6314689 8S 405 I831F<6h;5 2;C5
! In this case, plaintiffs anu uefenuants in the action biought in 0N aie all 0N iesiuents
! Both paities own conuos in Floiiua
! Conuos = immovable piopeity, no pioblem
! The uefenuant's toilet leaks, watei uamage occuis to the plaintiff's conuo below anu contents of the conuo
! Action is biought in 0ntaiio foi uamages
! The 0N couit ueciues to assume juiisuiction
! 0bviously no one is contesting title but it uoes involve uamage to a foieign immovable anu Canauian couits
have been kinu of liteial in the way they tieateu the Nocambique iule - almost any action involving a
foieign movable, we woulu not take juiisuiction
K "9 406= 31=5g 405 &# 38;24 41f5= Z;26=@634689
K `5= 40525 6= @1F1Q5 48 405 S8256Q9 6FF8>1<C5 <;4 405 =4145F594 8S 3C16F 19@ @5S5935 69@63145
4014 1 =;<=419461C J28J824689 8S @1F1Q5= F1D _5CC <5 S8;9@ 48 <5 @1F1Q5= 48 F8>1<C5=
K $05 S134 4014 40525 F1D =8F5 @1F1Q5 48 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D =08;C@ 984 @6=59464C5 405 JC16946SS
S28F <269Q69Q 40562 134689 69 405 J28>6935 8S &# _059 464C5 48 C19@ 6= 984 69 @6=J;45
K $06= 31=5 6= 1;408264D S82 405 J28J8=64689 4014 69 3623;F=41935= =6F6C12 48 406=g _5 F6Q04 <5 =412469Q
48 F1f5 19 693;2=689 6948 405 I831F<6h;5 2;C5 69 1@@64689 48 405 5B35J4689= k1S452 405 <251fl
])&; 3 W(6a1" GTRO #^/)
! Action was commenceu in NB to enfoice a contiact foi the sale of lanu, the lanu was locateu in QC
! The plaintiff in the action in NB wanteu eithei specific peifoimance oi uamages
! The uefenuant was seiveu in NB - so no uoubt in teims of juiisuiction (foi in peisonam actions) - the NB
couit hau juiisuiction - seivice within the juiisuiction gives the couit juiisuiction
! Question is: uoes the NB couit have juiisuiction ovei the action.
! Answei is yes - it is a contiact action - it is an in peisonam action
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
11S
! It is not an action wheie the paities aie fighting foi title to lanu
! The title is in the uefenuant, the plaintiff wants it
! A contiact action can pioceeu because if the action is fiameu in contiact, it falls into one of the exceptions
to the Nocambique iule (%' :$#8"'*4)
! You may think: an awaiu foi specific peifoimance - isn't that pietty much like ueteimining title to lanu in
QC. - the answei is yeah: but it is inuiiect
! Theie is an oiuei foi specific peifoimance - it is an in peisonam equitable oiuei anu if the uefenuant
in NB fails to comply with the oiuei to peifoim the contiact specifically, then that uefenuant can be
hanuleu by NB couits by way of contempt
! This is why you want to think about issuing equitable oiueis because you want to be suie that you can
enfoice them
! The only way of enfoicing an equitable in peisonam oiuei like that is thiough contempt pioceeuings
! /8 69 406= 31=5g 38;C@ 01>5 Q84459 @1F1Q5=g 38;C@ 01>5 Q84459 19 82@52 S82 =J536i63 J52S82F1935
m <840 8S 408=5 389=464;45 1" $%&'(")* 25F5@65=
! $05 #^ 38;24 38;C@ 984 $%-#/M,% 405 464C5 48 405 JC16946SS m 64 38;C@ 89CD 82@52 405 @5S59@194 48
Q54 64 @895
! Note: we aie now in Canaua piepaieu to iecognize anu enfoice in peisonam equitable oiueis at least
of Canauian couits, piobably of foieign couits as well - F&( 9,1"2
! So these 4 cases all have to uo with juiisuiction of the foium (common law couit) when lanu
immovable piopeity is locateu outsiue of the juiisuiction
! It is a faiily naiiow exclusionaiy iule - the cases wheie we will not take juiisuiction in involve 464C5 48
C19@ anu 425=J1== 48 C19@
! Foi in peisonam actions, it uoesn't mattei if they involve a foieign immovable piopeity, we will take
juiisuiction - so you fiame youi action piopeily oi else you go to the othei juiisuiction
%,)&+#"$"&# -#' ,#M&%),I,#$: "# %,I H('+I,#$/
?/U% 3 4";+%& GTPO /))
! SCC case
! Beals with iecognition anu enfoicement of a foieign juugment uealing with local lanu
! BC is the foium foi the action
! Theie is a Califoinia connection
! The Bukes anu the Anuleis liveiesiueaie uomicileu in Califoinia
! The Anulei family owns immovable piopeity in BC
! They aie living in Califoinia
! They agiee to sell the lanu which they own in BC to Ni. Buke
! So they entei into a contiact in Califoinia
! The plaintiff venuois in the Califoinia action (the Anuleis) own the BC piopeity in equal shaies, by
contiact uateu 192S, the plaintiffs agiee to sell theii piopeity to the uefenuant foi $SS,uuu
! The contiact pioviueu that on the venuoi's uepositing pioof of goou title in esciow, the puichasei woulu
pay $1u,uuu in cash anu uelivei a piomissoiy note foi the balance of $4S,uuu secuieu by a moitgage on
the piopeity in Califoinia
! The venuois uepositeu the ueeu which on ueliveiy woulu vest title in the puichasei
! Somehow, the puichasei manageu to obtain the title ueeu without paying the $1u,uuu anu without
ueliveiing the secuieu piomissoiy note
! Buke then obtains iegistiation of the piopeity in his name in the LT0 iegistiy in victoiia, he obtains a
ceitificate of inuefeasible title, he moitgages the piopeity foi $SS,uuu, leaseu it foi a teim of yeais anu
then tiansfeiieu the piopeity to his wife (who may oi may not be an innocent paity)
! The venuois haven't got paiu - they commence an action in Califoinia against Buke
! They allege bieach of contiact anu fiauu - EXCEPTI0NS T0 N0CANBIQ0E
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
116
! The Califoinia couits also have the common law Nocambique iule, anu they say oh, yes we can take
juiisuiction because this is a contiact action anu an equitable action
! The Califoinia couit oiueieu the uefenuants (the Bukes) to specific peifoimance
! The Califoinia couit iecognizes that Buke is a ueutsch so they say: in the even that the uefenuant shoulu
fail oi iefuse to comply, they authoiize a commissionei to foice him to uo this
! The uefenuants (Bukes) faileu to comply with the oiuei of specific peifoimance
! So the couit cleik executeu the conveyance anu the plaintiffs applieu to the iegistiai in the LT0 in victoiia
to have this iegisteieu anu the iegistiai iefuseu
! Anu that's when the shit hit the fan
! Plaintiffs wanteu to have the BCSC make an oiuei to the iegistiai to enfoice the Califoinia juugment
"==;5
! Shoulu BC R&E juugments fiom couits which exeicise juiisuiction on the same basis we woulu..
! Answei given by SCC is No!
%1468
! Woulu not R&E because it involves immovables in BC anu uo not want foieign juiisuictions playing aiounu
with oui immovables
! Califoinia juugment may have been in peisonam, but the piopeity is in BC anu BC couits won't stanu a
foieign couit ueciuing what will happen to lanu heie.
! If you want specific peifoimance to convey immovable piopeity, you bettei go to that juiisuiction to
litigate bc the couits in that juiisuiction aie the only ones who will have the ability to convey title to that
immovable piopeity. You can tiy to get specific peifoimance in anothei juiisuiction, but the uefenuant
may not obey the in peisonam oiuei.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
117
)U&"), &M .-V
%59>86 W "936@5941C X;5=4689
5)'U)"(,'U) 3 5)'U)"(,'U1 GTYR ?28<145 (])-
! Illustiates the use of Paitial Renvoi as an alteinative valiuating iule - i.e. It is Paitial Renvoi being useu
when you uon't get the iesult you want to get when you apply the uomestic law - you get 2 chances to get
the iesult you want
! Pait of the Polish maiiiage gioup of cases
! Bow uoes Renvoi woik in this case.
! This is a case of the English couit using b*#.%*1 k$';"% as an 1C4529146>5 >1C6@1469Q 2;C5 anu that use is
actually now built in to oui choice of law iule
M134=
! The paities get maiiieu in Italy, they both happen to be in Italy post-wai anu they get maiiieu in a chuich
in Italy by a Catholic piiest
! 0nfoitunately, ceitainly aiticles of the civil coue that the piiest was supposeu to ieau out when they
maiiieu was nevei ieau out anu they nevei iegisteieu theii maiiiage in Italy
! Both paities aie Polish nationals
! They tiy to comply with the local Italian law - the law of the place wheie the maiiiage was being
celebiateu - but thiough no fault of theii own, they uon't manage to uo it
! Subsequently, they winu up in Englanu anu the valiuity of theii maiiiage in Italy is challengeu in Englanu
"==;5
! So Englanu is the foium anu the cause of action, the juiiuical subcategoiy is "foimal valiuity of the
maiiiage"
! Easy connecting factoi because it is geogiaphical - wheie uiu the ceiemony take place. Italy
! English couit says foimal valiuity of maiiiage - Italy
%51=8969Q
! Automatically, the English couit looks at Italian uomestic law
! Theie was not compliance with Italian uomestic law
! So by the law of the place wheie the maiiiage was celebiateu, the maiiiage was foimally invaliu
! 0iuinaiily this woulu be the enu of it
! Noi was the common law exception available (because they hau maue an attempt to comply)
! But, says the English Couit of Appeal, the Italian conflicts iule says the |foimalj valiuity of a maiiiage is
goveineu by the law of the nationality
! So what is the nationality of the allegeu spouses. Polanu - so you go to the law of Polanu
! Anu hau they manageu to comply with Polish law, they woulu have liveu happily evei aftei
! But unfoitunately Taksanowska anu Taksanowski hau faileu to comply with Polish law too
! The point is: the english couit useu b3kcY3[ kM@hWY
! They lookeu at the uomestic law fiist - got the wiong iesult
! Anu then they askeu: But what woulu Italy uo in this situation - 0h, they go with nationality, they have to
be Polish nationals - so let's look at the uomestic law of Polanu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
118
! So now, as a iesult of this case, you get a @8;<C5 <1225C 2;C5 - foimal valiuity of a maiiiage is goveineu by:
$%.-$# the law wheie the maiiiage was celebiateu 0R the conflicts iule of that juiisuiction - so it's built in,
you get two options
! So this case is b*#.%*1 k$';"% as an alteinative valiuating iule anu is built in now to the common law choice
of law iule
@%1+'(" 3 S3%&'%)' F&(A%:0' W(&$(&)01(" (6 \1:0(&1) K0; OaaY -;= kU)-l
! Fiistonly time case in which Renvoi has been useu in a toits case
! 0sually we eithei use the olu uouble baiiel iule oi the new iule since 199S, 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.*% (Tolofson
anu }ensen) then we apply the uomestic law of the juiisuiction that is selecteu
! That uiun't happen heie
M134=
! Ni. anu Nis. Neilson aie employeu by 0veiseas Piojects Coipoiation of victoiia, Austialia - 0PC is an
Austialian company
! 0PC has some business being conuucteu in China
! Nis. Neilson is living in housing in China pioviueu by hei employei 0PC, she falls uown the staiis at night
! She claims it wasn't hei fault
! She claims that 0PC is iesponsible foi hei uamages because they haun't piopeily maintaineu the housing
oi something to that effect
! She sues 0PC in Westein Austialia (that's wheie she is fiom) - an Austialian foium
! She sues in oiuei to iecovei foi the uamages sustaineu in the housing owneu by 0PC
! Theie is a question in Austialia as to the choice of law iule - they aie using a iule similai to oui Canauian
common iule, 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.*%
! 0iuinaiily, the foium says, we will apply to the meiits of this uamages claim the law of the place wheie the
acciuent occuiieu anu the acciuent occuiieu in China
"==;5
! Whats the pioblem. Why can't they just apply Chinese law.
! Noie than a yeai has passeu since the acciuent
! Chinese uomestic law has limitation peiious anu the limitation peiiou set by Chinese law (3#.%51$ Kfq in
theii Coue) is 1 yeai - anu it has passeu
! k$4$47$#( Limitation peiious aie substantive law - then the foium will apply the limitation peiiou of the
1$A 1"5% <$1$5.*% (foi toit) R now we'ie in tiouble - she has no cause of action
! So counsel (ingeniously) looks aiounu at othei piovisions, anu finus that theie is a piovision (3#.%51$ Knq)
that says: (it's a conflicts iule) oiuinaiily, compensation is ueteimineu by the 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.% (choice of law
iule) - if that was the only choice of law iule, then the choice of law iule woulu also point to China
! But theie is an alteinative - an exception: If both paities aie nationals of the same countiy oi uomicileu in
the same countiy, the law of theii own countiy oi uomicile 4*+ be applieu - it's flexible - seems to give
some uiscietion
! Both Nis. Neilson anu the uefenuant company aie Austialian nationals anu uomicileu in Austialia
! So piima facie, this Chinese conflicts iule is available
U5C@
! Nis. Neilson wins
%51=8969Q
! The BCA finus a way to apply Austialian law
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
119
! They opt foi a k$';"% iule foi toit - we uon't blinuly apply oui choice of law iule anu only evei apply the
uomestic law of the lex loci uelectai - we can look at the conflicts iule of the lex loci ueletcai
! The BCA engages in a statutoiy inteipietation of Aiticle 146 anu say that's b*#%*1 k$';"%
! They focus on the theoiy of k$';"% anu they say c".*1 k$';"i is a pioblem but heie all we have to uo is
apply the law selecteu by the Chinese conflicts iule, that is Austialian uomestic law - we can apply
Austialian uomestic law anu Nis. Neilson wins
! But EE says it seems what the BC says is that if we aie going to use k$';"% at all, we aie going to use c".*1
k$';"% - but they winu up using b*#%*1 k$';"%
! So: they look at the chinese conflicts iule, they take a iemission anu they apply Austialian uomestic law
! They uon't have to ueciue how to solve the 5%#521*8 %'$A.#%5*72128 because miiaculously (anu typically)
they uon't have to
5%=:)" 3 5%=:)" GTTO ^))-
! BCCA uefines Paitial Renvoi anu Total Renvoi - they aie goou uefinitions
9:<,%B%+ 3 T"2)& GTAY /))
! Sequence of events that biought this case to SCC:
! 194S in Bungaiy, theie is a maiiiage between husbanu anu wife (0ngai)
! The husbanu anu wife aie uomicileu in Bungaiy, anu get maiiieu in Bungaiy
! The wife (0ngai) hau always liveu in Bungaiy
! Both wanteu to leave Bungaiy so they uiu - but they got maiiieu wheie they weie uomicileu
! The fiist maiiiage was absolutely valiu - no pioblem
! They leave Bungaiy with an intention of nevei ietuining - but it is theii uomicile of oiigin, anu you
can't abanuon youi uomicile of oiigin until you acquiie a new one
! Foi S yeais, they aie on theii way to Isiael (theii ultimate uestination), living in vaiious camps, etc.
! 1948 they aie in a camp in Italy on theii way to Isiael anu they get a Q544 @6>8235 (not by Italian law
but by }ewish law)
! Shoitly aftei, they both aiiive in Isiael anu both unuoubteuly acquiieu a uomicile of choice in isiael
! They weie physically theie, they both intenueu to stay theie (although we uon't know what the
husbanu thought because he coulun't be founu)
! 0ne of the uifficulties (that by coinciuence was avoiueu): we still hau the uomicile of uepenuency - so
the uomicile of the wife was uepenuent on the uomicile of the husbanu but because they both went to
same place anu inuepenuently ,"21< have acquiieu uomicile theie, that issue uiun't come up
! 1u yeais latei, 0ngai comes to Canaua to visit ielatives, she gets maiiieu to Schwebel, they have a
uaughtei
! Schwebel finus out about husbanu #1 anu asks foi an annulment on the giounus that at the time she
maiiieu him, she hau no capacity to maiiy him
! Question: uiu the wife have capacity to entei into a seconu maiiiage. - question of essential valiuity of the
maiiiage
! Choice of law iule says: the essential valiuity of a maiiiage is goveineu by the law of the uomicile of the
paities at the moment of maiiiage
K /8 8;2 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 C88f= 48 @8F636C5 48 @5452F695 _054052 405 _6S5 69 405 =5389@ F12261Q5
01@ 31J1364D 48 F122D 0;=<19@ pO
! If she was single, it was fine
! But if hei uivoice in Italy was not a valiu uivoice, she uiu not have capacity to entei into maiiiage #2
! So the whole thing tuineu on the valiuity of the uivoice - that's a conflicts iule - but it's a iecognition iule
(it's not a choice of law iule)
! The question is: will we REC0uNIZE this ueciee.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
12u
K /8 D8;2 =;<=6@612D 6==;5 6= 1 389iC634= 6==;5 k984 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5=g <;4 389iC634= 2;C5=l
! We then, anu now, have special iecognition iules foi foieign uivoices (just as foi pecuniaiy anu non-
pecuniaiy juugments, oui iecognition iules have bioaueneu, so too have oui iecognition iules foi foieign
uivoices)
! In 1964, they weie veiy naiiow
K )191@1 01@ 2;C5= S82 2538Q964689 8S S8256Q9 @6>8235=
K "=215C 1C=8 01@ 2;C5= S82 2538Q964689 8S S8256Q9 @6>8235=
! S0: the main issue (capacity to maiiy) tuineu on whethei the uivoice in Italy was iecognizeu
! Isiael woulu iecognize the gett uivoice in Italy - as fai as Isiael was conceineu, 0ngai hau single status
anu hau capacity to maiiy husbanu #2 - /8: `5=g /69QC5
! But the Canauian0ntaiio iecognition of foieign uivoice iules weie veiy naiiow - we woulu iecognize, at
that time,: (1) uivoices obtaineu in the common uomicile (Bungaiy) oi (2) uivoices iecognizeu by the
uomicile
! Wheie was the uomicile of the paities at the time of the uivoice. - Bungaiy
! So you get eviuence as to whethei Bungaiy woulu iecognize the gett uivoice in Italy - the answei was:
No, Bungaiy woulu not iecognize it anu they weien't in Bungaiy at the time of the uivoice - So: the
uivoice was not iecognizeu by oui foieign uivoice iules
! S0: if the 0ntaiio couit hau applieu its own conflicts iecognition iule - the answei was: No, they weie still
maiiieu
! But the 1$A 5*28*$ iecognition iule says: Yes, we iecognize the uivoice
! The SCC saiu, let's apply the lex causae iules - she is single, soiiy Schwebel, can't get the maiiiage
annulleu
! So uiu the SCC explain why it chose to use the lex causae conflicts iule on the subsiuiaiy question anu not
the foium iule. - Not ieally
! Not a single iefeience to the inciuental question anu yet that's why Schwebel v 0ngai is famous - because
theie WAS an inciuental question, the inciuental question WAS solveu - so if it is a pieceuent foi using the
conflicts iule of the lex causae on the subsiuiaiy question but it's not a binuing pieceuent because theie is
no ieasoning given - they just uiu it
! This case C00LB have been explaineu by cieating a new iecognition iule anu this was suggesteu by
acauemics - maybe now we have a iecognition iule that says we iecognize uivoices in the uomicile, we
iecognize uivoices iecognizeu by the uomicile, oi we iecognize uivoices by subsequently acquiieu
uomiciles - we iejecteu that
! But Schwebel v 0ngai is an inciuental question case, but you can't ieally use it as a guiue piospectively foi
this ciitical issue of "how uo we choose."
@".$( 4*##%*&$8 -*;$ ." 7$ 7".- !"#4*11+ *'< $88$'.%*11+ ;*1%<
u M88$'.%*1 ;*1%<%.+ %8 .#*<%.%"'*11+ &";$#'$< 7+ .-$ <2*1 <"4%5%1$ #21$ R 4$*'8 +"2 1""E *. <"4%5%1$ "! .-$
-287*'< ." 8$$ %! -$ -*< 5*:*5%.+ *. .-$ 4"4$'. 7$!"#$ -$ 8*+8 6Y <"9 *'< .-$' +"2 1""E *. .-$ <"4%5%1$ "! .-$
,%!$ ." 8$$ %! 8-$ -*< 5*:*5%.+ ." 4*##+ -%4> %! 8-$ -*8 5*:*5%.+ *. .-$ 4"4$'. 7$!"#$ 8-$ 8*+8 6Y <"9
u I" %. %8 * <2*1 <"4%5%1$ #21$
u Y' .-%8 5*8$> -$ ,*8 V%'$> 72. .-$ "'1+ %882$ ,*8 %! 8-$ -*< 5*:*5%.+ ." 4*##+ -%4> ,-$.-$# 8-$ -*< 8%'&1$
8.*.28
u W'$ ,*+ ." *;"%< .-$ ,-"1$ %'5%<$'.*1 U2$8.%"' 2'5$#.*%'.+ %8 &" !"# * <$51*#*.%"' *7"2. .-$ ;*1%<%.+ "! .-$
Y.*1%*' <%;"#5$
u B"2 5*' .-$' 7#%'& .-*. ." .-$ 5"2#. 7+ %.8$1! R .-$#$ %8 '" %882$> .-$ 5"2#. -*8 ." 28$ %.8 WN@ 5"'V1%5.8 #21$8
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
121
u I" %. *11 <$:$'<8 "' .-$ ,*+ %' ,-%5- .-$ 5*8$ *#%8$8 *'< %. :*#.1+ <$:$'<8 "' ,-*. .-$ 5"2#. 8*+8 %8 .-$ 4*%'
%882$ *'< ,-*. %8 .-$ 8278%<%*#+ %882$
u MA*4 '".$( *11 ,$ -*;$ ." 7$ *71$ ." <" %8 .-$ *7%1%.+ ." kM0Wl@YvM *' %'5%<$'.*1 U2$8.%"'
I12261Q5
>&((U 3 >&((U GETG (]U.
! The paities went off looking foi a place wheie they coulu get maiiieu
! They coulu not get maiiieu at home in Englanu because theii maiiiage was foibiuuen
! They lookeu aiounu Euiope
! The Biooks went off to Benmaik, went thiough a ceiemony of maiiiage theie
! As fai as the law of Benmaik was conceineu, theie was no impeuiment
! They came back to Englanu, things happeneu, people uieu, in the S
,+
geneiation - the Attoiney ueneial
says theie is no heii because theie was no valiu maiiiage, we get the piopeity
! The BL invents a new choice of law iule that we can't iecognize this maiiiage in Benmaik
! So in /#""E ; /#""E we get the <6S;2314689 8S >1C6@64D 8S F12261Q5 6948 =;<N3145Q8265=:
(1) M82F1C >1C6@64D (still goveineu by the law of the place of celebiation of maiiiage, 1$A 1"5%
5$1$7#*.%"'28) anu
(2) ,==59461C >1C6@64D (goveineu by geneially speaking eithei (a) the uual uomicile iule oi (b) when
it's convenient oi just oi something, by the law of the intenueu matiimonial home)
! In this case, on the facts, the uual uomicile iule selecteu Englanu anu the matiimonial home iule selecteu
Englanu so you uiun't neeu to choose - they both floateu but woulu have maue no uiffeience to the iesult
(they coinciueu in fact)
! veiy often, it WILL make a significant uiffeience though - one will say yes, one will say no (like the
inciuental question)
! So you have to iemembei: you have a choice - theie is N0 Canauian pieceuent that says, we apply only one
oi the othei
! They aie usually both uiscusseu anu one is selecteu
! In a vast majoiity of cases, it uoesn't make any uiffeience
! The allegeu uefect in Biook v Biook is 1Si6964D
! Ni. Biook maiiieu his sistei-in-law aftei his wife uieu - that was foibiuuen in Englanu at the time - no
pioblem now, in Canaua
! This case is a goou illustiation of how the issues aiounu valiuity of maiiiage come up in litigation - they uo
not always come up between the paities, they may come up in subsequent geneiations, in a succession
case
! So maiiiage is often a subsiuiaiy issue - C00LB be a tiue inciuental issue but even if it is not a TR0E
inciuental question, it is often a subsiuiaiy issue
! That's essentially what happeneu heie
! Beai in minu, maiiiage anu uivoice was a new toy foi the common law couits, they only got juiisuiction in
19S7
! So this is an example of the common law couits playing with a new toy anu not being suie how to hanule it
M134=
! 184u: William Chailes Biook maiiies Chailotte Aimitage, they have 2 chiluien
! Within 7 yeais, Chailotte uies
! S yeais latei, William Biook maiiies his sistei in law, Emily Aimitage, they have S chiluien
! S yeais latei, Emily anu William Biook both uie of choleia
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
122
! Theie aie S iemaining chiluien
! William Biook leaves a will anu leaves the iesiuue of his piopeity to the S chiluien, anu names all S - no
pioblem so fai
! But then: one of the chiluien of maiiiage #2 uies
"==;5
! The question is ovei the ! shaie of that son - so it's a succession case
! But it's not between the paities, it's the Attoiney ueneial of Englanu claiming the ! shaie of the ueceaseu
son of the 2
*+
maiiiage
! The Au's aigument: maiiiage #2 to the sistei in law was voiu so the ! shaie passes to the Ciown as 7"'*
;*5*'.%*
C% 0<% 3)+1;10- (6 *)&&1)2% nD
! Typically, William Biook anu his sistei-in-law knew that they coulu not maiiy each othei (at that point in
time, a man coulu not maiiy his sistei-in-law)
! Euiopeans at this time, weie tiaveling aiounu to finu somewheie wheie they coulu maiiy
! The Biooks went to Benmaik, wheie you coulu maiiy youi sistei-in-law
! So the question now is will Englanu consiuei the Banish maiiiage to be valiu
! 0ntil 1961, theie is a single choice of law iule: it says: 1$A 1"5% 5$1$7#*.%"'28 (oi 1$A 1"5% 5"'.#*5.28 - because
maiiiage is a contiact)
! The law of the place of contiacting foi contiact puiposes was quite piominent in the miu 19
'(
centuiy
- anu it was .-$ choice of law iule in maiiiage
! But Bouse of Loius says, No, we can't biing ouiselves to iecognize this Banish maiiiage
! BL talks about the uomicile of the paities (both in Englanu) anu they came back to Englanu to make theii
home theie - both of these connections aie floateu in Biook v Biook anu it maue no uiffeience to the
outcome of the case whethei the BL saiu the anti-nuptial uomicile of the paities shoulu ueteimine the
valiuity of the maiiiage oi whethei they went with the intenueu matiimonial home
! The one thing that the couit uiu not use was "contiaiy to foieign public policy" - anu yet that's cleaily
piesent
! What the couit uiu was change the choice of law iules - you get a bifuication:
! Foimal valiuity
! Essential valiuity
! Yes, foimal valiuity 1$A 1"5% 5$1$7#%".28 continues to govein
! But foi essential valiuity, the capacity to maiiy each othei, that has to be eithei the law of uual uomicile oi
the law of the intenueu matiimonial home
! What the Biooks enu up with is a C6FJ69Q F12261Q5 - a maiiiage that is consiueieu to be a valiu maiiiage
in some juiisuictions anu not to exist in othei juiisuictions
! The object of these choice of law iules, geneially, is to achieve unifoimity - anu the one thing you want in
maiiiage is unifoim status - you want to be consiueieu valiuly maiiiage wheievei in the woilu you go
! S0: k$';"% has a toe-holu in maiiiage choice of law iules because we'ie aiming foi, iaiely achieving,
unifoimity - "we'll uo what the law of the place of celebiation woulu uo" - because we want unifoimity
! So k$';"% is an eligible uoctiine - uon't foiget about it - it is built in to the choice of law iule:
! M82F1C >1C6@64D of a maiiiage is goveineu by the law of the place of celebiation (paitial k$';"%)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
12S
! ,==59461C >1C6@64D of a maiiiage is goveineu by: (1) uual uomicile iule (main contenuei) - goveineu
by the law of each of the paities' anti-nuptial uomicile - may have to satisfy laws of two uiffeient legal
systems 0R the othei contenuei (2) the law of the intenueu matiimonial home (post-nuptial) - wheie
you live aftei the ceiemony
! These aie N0T ALTERNATIvES
W)");) 3 @)&,)+ GTTa M)-
! Affinity case
! The wife maiiies one biothei, gets uivoiceu, moves into the home of hei in-laws because she wants to get
maiiieu again anu hei fathei wants anothei son, so she maiiies hei biothei-in-law
! She maiiies him
! But she gets maiiieu in Englanu anu they want to come to Canaua to live
! Theie is a pioblem with immigiation - can't get him in - .
! Be's Inuian
! 0nuei the law of his uomicile, Inuia, he uiun't have capacity to maiiy his sistei-in-law
! The FCA applies the law of the intenueu matiimonial home
! But they haun't acquiieu a matiimonial home
! So he applies the SPIRIT of the intenueu matiimonial home
! Canaua is wheie they WANTEB to make theii matiimonial
! So we'll apply Canauian law
! So they'ie valiuly maiiieu
K $06= 31=5 6CC;=42145= 405 _51f95== 8S 1JJCD69Q 405 C1_ 8S 405 69459@5@ F1426F8961C 08F5 m 405D
F1D 95>52 01>5 1 F1426F8961C 08F5g 82 405D F6Q04 C6>5 45FJ82126CD =8F5_0525 k_0525 405D Q84
405 3525F89D S82 5B1FJC5l 19@ 4059 =544C5 =8F5_0525 5C=5
K U8_ @8 D8; =5C534 405 69459@5@ F1426F8961C 08F5d m "= 64 405 i62=4 JC135 405D =544C5g 5>59 6S 405D
=41D 40525 89CD 45FJ82126CDd
! Peihaps they nevei ieach theii intenueu matiimonial home - they get maiiieu somewheie, get on a plane,
anu the plane ciashes - anu they uon't ieach theii matiimonial home.
! So what is the law you use if you want to use the law of the intenueu matiimonial home.
K /8 40525 125 J28<C5F= _640 ;=69Q 406= 1JJ28130 <;4 48 1 3524169 5B4594 64 F1f5= 1 C84 8S =59=5
<531;=5 64 6= 1 =69QC5 C5Q1C =D=45F 1= @6=46934 S28F O =5J12145 C5Q1C =D=45F=
9)"2<) 3 M)";%& GTEY ^)/)
! It canvasses all the possibilities
! The husbanu hau uisappeaieu anu they hau no iuea wheie it was
! They choose the uual uomicile iule in the enu
! The point is: Y00 BAvE AN 0PTI0N foi essential valiuity
! If you can peisuaue the couit that the intenueu matiimonial home test makes the most sense in the
ciicumstances of youi case - theie is pieceuent foi it
! If you can peisuaue the couit that the uual uomicile iule, which is the pieuominant one selecteu, makes
the most sense in the ciicumstances of youi case - theie is pieceuent foi that too
! Theie is ioom foi aigument about the best choice of law iule beaiing in minu theie is no single choice of
law iule in the common law iule in any categoiy which uoesn't piouuce anomalous iesults when applieu
to a paiticulai set of ciicumstances
! What you'ie looking foi in foimulatingmouifying choice of law iule is a iule that, in the vast majoiity of
the cases selects a legal system which has a ieal anu substantial connection with the legal issue - a
justification foi being applieu
! Anu the choice of law iules that we have weie 19
'(
centuiy attempts to uo that - but because they aie 19
'(

centuiy attempts - they aie open foi mouification if you can come up with a bettei choice of law iule -
that's the challenge
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
124
./;'(" 3 K%12< OaaT (]U)
M134=
! Bas to uo with the valiuity of a maiiiage which took place in South Afiica
! Both the paities weie uomicileu in Englanu but living in SA
! They met in SA anu they hau a ielationship in SA, they hau a chilu in SA, anu then they ueciueu to get
maiiieu
! "It is common giounu that the paities' beliefs of a ieligious natuie coulu not have been moie uiffeient.
Niss Buuson is a uevout Chiistian; wheieas Ni Leigh is uesciibeu in his Counsel's 0pening piesentation as
'an atheist }ew'. She wisheu to have a ieligious maiiiage ceiemony; he uiu not. She woulu only have
iegaiueu heiself as piopeily maiiieu by way of a ieligious ceiemony; he, only by way of a ceiemony in a
Registei 0ffice."
! So they compiomise - they agiee that they woulu have something ieligious in SA anu then they woulu fly
back to Englanu anu have something civil in the iegistei office in Englanu
! They uo the ceiemony in SA
! 0nfoitunately foi them, somewheie between the ieligious ceiemony anu the civil ceiemony in Englanu,
the ielationship bieaks uown - they nevei go thiough with the civil ceiemony
! Ns. Buuson applies foi a uivoice in Englanu - in oiuei to get the financial iemeuies
! Ni. Leigh says, we'ie not maiiieu - we uiun't know the ceiemony in SA was a maiiiage ceiemony
! They hau 2 expeits on the law in SA anu they uisagieeu on the effect of SA law on the ceiemony - so they
coulun't solve this by expeit eviuence
! So you want to aigue foimal valiuity - what aie you aiguing about the ceiemony. - if you want to aigue
that the maiiiage is S82F1CCD 69>1C6@ (so we get the law of SA applying - the law of the place of
celebiation), you have to aigue that SA law woulu not consiuei this paiticulai ceiemony to be a valiu
ceiemony of maiiiage
! 0n the othei hanu, if you want to get this into the choice of law iules foi 5==59461C >1C6@64D, you want to
aigue theie was no consent - I knew I wasn't being piopeily maiiieu, I knew this wasn't ieally a ceiemony
of maiiiage, it was just a blessing, a ieligious ceiemony blessing what is to come
! So you can chaiacteiize the allegeu uefect two ways
! The way in which the English BC chaiacteiizeu it: they saiu it is a question of foimal valiuity - that's why
they went with SA expeits
! In the enu, the English BC ueciues the paities weie not foimally valiuly maiiieu in SA because all the
paities knew at the time that it wasn't a ieal maiiiage ceiemony (incluuing the ministei) - so it wasn't just
the consent of the paities, it was the ministei himself who knew the paities weien't ieally intenuing to get
maiiieu that uay
! This is a nice example of the uefect focusing on an event which coulu have been chaiacteiizeu eithei way,
but was in fact chaiacteiizeu as foimal valiuity - went to the natuie of the ceiemony
! The couit hau to go into what the ministei knew because the SA expeits uisagieeu on the effect of the
ceiemony in SA law
! So she uiun't get a uivoice, he got a ueclaiation that they weien't valiuly maiiieu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
12S
! The juuge coulu have just iefuseu to giant the uivoicefinancial consequences but if the paities wanteu to
get maiiieu again, theie may be question as to whethei they hau single status - so he gave a ueclaiation
that they weien't valiuly maiiieu
G"2+1'< 9$1"'0%& )"; G2-$01)" M)" W)'%
! Theie was an English case which helu that not capacity :$# 8$ but capacity to entei into a polygamous
maiiiage is goveineu by the law of the intenueu matiimonial home - no option, no unceitainty
! }ustification foi this: only the legal system wheie the paities make theii home is entitleushoulu ueciue
whethei paities can entei into a polygamous maiiiage
! In that paiticulai case, the paities hau been maiiieu (English spinstei anu Egyptian man) - they got
maiiieu in an Egyptian embassy in Paiis anu went off to Egypt to live theie foi 2u yeais anu hau kius
! Biu the English spinstei, then uomicileu in Englanu, have capacity to entei into a polygamous maiiiage.
! If you apply the uual uomicile iule - people uomicileu in a monogamous juiisuiction can't entei into a
polygamous maiiiage, so if you pleu the uual uomicile iule, she uiun't have capacity anu that 2u yeais of
maiiieu life with chiluien went uown the uiain
! The English juuge ueciues that the only choice of law iule foi capacity entei into a polygamous maiiiage
shoulu be the law of the intenueu matiimonial home (which maue peifect sense in this paiticulai case)
.-;% 3 .-;% YZee TN
! Ni Byue went off to 0tah, went thiough what was assumeu to be a polygamous maiiiage
! Be was valiuly polygamously maiiieu
! Be leaves 0tah, winus up eventually in Englanu
! Bis wife gets maiiieu
! Ni. Byue is back in Englanu
! Be wants matiimonial ielief
! Be wants to know whethei he is fiee to maiiy
! The English couit says no, we can't give you matiimonial ielief - we uon't know what matiimonial ielief
we shoulu give to polygamous maiiiages
! What aie we supposeu to uo foi the 6
'(
wife.
! We know how to give matiimonial ielieffinancial uivoiceetc foi the fiist wife (monogamous union) but
we uon't know how to hanule wives 2, S, 4, S, 6
! So Ni. Byue uiun't get anything because the iules in Byue v Byue (in auuition to the uefinition - maiiiage
is an institution between one man anu one woman to the exclusion of all otheis) - N0 NATRIN0NIAL
RELIEF
! That is still the common law iule touay in BC - has been oveituineu by statute in some juiisuictions but
the consequence of Byue v Byue is that if the paities aie valiuly maiiieu polygamously, they cannot be
gianteu matiimonial ielief
! What is meant by matiimonial ielief - no uefinition but it ceitainly incluues uivoice, piobably financial
ielief (suppoit, maintenance, etc.)
! S0: the common law iule (unless oveituineu by statute, BC has not uone this): theie is no matiimonial
ielief foi paities to a valiu polygamous maiiiage
\%&3)%U% 3 9*10< GTEP (]U.: 405 J6FJ 19@ 405 J28=464;45
! Classic maiital uispute case
! It is actually a succession case, like /#""E ; /#""E, but the valiuity of a maiiiage comes up as a subsiuiaiy
question
M134=
! 19S7 in Shanghai: ueoige Smith maiiies a Russian lauy nameu veivaeke .
! They sepaiate anu ueoige enus up in Englanu anu veivaeke enus up in the 0S
! Subsequent ieseaich uiscoveis that in 1946, she obtaineu a Nevaua uivoice
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
126
! 19S4: ueoige is uown anu out - he is a homeless peison on the stieets in Lonuon
! Be goes thiough anothei ceiemony of maiiiage to Naiia Theiesa, a Belgian lauy - foi Su lbs anu a ticket to
South Afiica
! Why uiu he go thiough a ceiemony with Naiia Theiesa. - because she was woiking in Lonuon as a
piostitute foi the Nassina oiganization (.) anu eveiy time she was aiiesteu foi soliciting foi the puiposes
of, she was uepoiteu to Belgium - this inteifeieu with hei piouuctivity
! The Nassina oiganization ueciueu they shoulu finu a way to avoiu uepoitation
! They look aiounu anu they finu ueoige - if they go thiough a maiiiage ceiemony, she won't be uepoiteu
! So he uoes anu she uoes - this was a classic case of "I hau my fingeis ciosseu behinu my back" because she
is only going thiough this maiiiage ceiemony (which was peifectly foimally valiu) foi puiposes of
immigiation (it's a sham maiiiage) - they nevei saw each othei again
! She continues to woik in Lonuon anu nevei gets uepoiteu
! 196S: she ietiies
! Neanwhile, one of the Nassina biotheis whose been in jain in Belgium gets ieleaseu fiom jail
! Be anu Naiia Theiesa get togethei anu they get maiiieu in Italy
! But they uon't live happily evei aftei
! Be uieu aftei the weuuing
! This case comes up because he uoesn't leave a will B0T he owns veiy valuable leaseholu piopeity in
Englanu
! So she is claiming the piopeity
! The English couit has to ueciue whethei Naiia Theiesa is valiuly maiiieu to the Nassina biothei anu
shoulu get the piopeity oi whethei anothei Nassina biothei shoulu get the piopeity - contest between
the pimp anu the piostitute
! They neeu to ueteimine whethei the maiiiage in Lonuon with ueoige anu Naiia Theiesa was valiu - that's
how they finu out about ueoige's maiital histoiy
! They uiscovei he hau nevei been uivoiceu - wheievei the ex-wife is, somewheie in the states, that uivoice
will be iecognizeu by the Nevaua couits - we iecognize uivoices iecognizeu by the law of the uomicile
! So in the enu, they founu that he was valiuly uivoiceu so he hau single status so he coulu be valiuly maiiieu
to Naiia Theiesa ANB even though it was cleaily a sham maiiiage anu Naiia Theiesa saiu, I uiun't
consent, the BL ueciues that they woulu iecognize the sham maiiiage
! B0T they use public policy in the enu
! The point is: this is not an untypical case in teims of (just like /#""E ; /#""E): the way the valiuity of the
maiiiage comes up anu the tiacing of the maiital histoiy anu how you have to solve the issues
chionologically as you go along
$824=
5(+(6'(" 3 7%"'%" GTTL /))
! We know the facts: acciuent in SK, action biought in BC
! 0nuei the law, the uouble baiiel iule uictateu that BC law woulu apply - law of the foium subject to any
lack of innocence in SK
! Pioblem with this: BC Limitation Act woulu apply
! La Foiest } (foi a unanimous couit) ueciues that limitations aie substantive law, anu uepenu on the lex loci
uelecti - anu the lex loci uelecti is the new iule!
! So we ieplaceu the uouble-baiiel iule with a lex loci uelecti iule
! Theie was no uoubt wheie the toit hau occuiieu in this case - it was a cai acciuent, they aie easy to locate
- heie, that is Saskatchewan - that's the lex loci uelecti
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
127
! So if we aie changing the choice of law iule, Saskatchewan law applies to meiits of the case anu the
unfoitunate plaintiff is out of luck because the SK limitation peiiou hau passeu, also got SK law which
iequiieu gioss negligence in those ciicumstances
V0D @85= .1 M825=4 H @536@5 48 3019Q5 405 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5d
! Theie aie 2 main factois which peisuaue the SCC that it is time to change the choice of law iule
G! M82;F =08JJ69Q
! We aie woiiieu that people will go aiounu looking foi a foium in which to iecovei
! This seems pietty bunk because that is wheie uiscietion comes in - if a couit has juiisuiction but
it is not the most appiopiiate foium foi the action, then they shoulun't heai the case
! Anu you uon't have to ambush the paities
O! )89=464;46891C )893529=
! Teiiitoiial conceinssoveieigntyetc - it is the foium ueciuing on the legal ielations between the
victim anu the toitfeasoi foi a toit which happeneu somewheie else
! These may not be as significant as La Foiest } thinks
! The couit consiueis othei possible choice of law iules
1. uoveinmental inteiest
2. The English iule
! Anu both aie iejecteu because he wants oiuei anu faiiness! - we've got to have a CERTAIN choice of law
iule
! So as oui oiuinaiy law iule, we have auopteu the choice of law iule uiscaiueu by the 0S
K /8 _5 01>5 C5B C836 @5C5346 1= 405 82@6912D 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5
K U8_5>52g 64 6= #&$ -^/&.($,
! La Foiest } (6S6-6S7) suggests: 40525 *)- <5 288F S82 5B35J4689= <;4 405D _8;C@ 955@ 48 <5 >52D
3125S;CCD @5i695@
! "Because a iigiu iule on the inteinational level coulu give iise to injustice, in ceitain ciicumstances, I am
not aveise to ietaining a uiscietion in the couit to apply oui own law to ueal with such ciicumstances."
! What he contemplates is that the lex loci uelecti iule will apply foi all Canauian toit cases
! If the toit shoulu occui outsiue Canaua (uoesn't specify what he means by an inteinational level but cleaily
outsiue Canaua), then theie is an alteinative iule
! In the alteinative iule, is to apply the law of the foium
! EE questions why if the facts of the case call foi an exception because the toit is at an inteinational level,
why woulu we apply the law of the foium - because it might be that it woulu make moie sensebe moie
justappiopiiate to apply the law of some thiiu countiy
! This may still be possible given the language useu - we aie not necessaiily lockeu in to the alteinative iule
of lex foii
! What the couits ieally want is an oiuinaiy iule with the potential foi exceptions - because potential
exceptions to an oiuinaiy iule allows them to satisfy theii sense of "justice" in a case (moie flexible)
! So, TBIS IS WBERE Y00 START IN A T0RT CASE - oiuinaiy iule = lex loci uelecti
9(*%&' 3 ^(/&"1%& Oaaa &#)-
! Involves an aigument foi an inteinational exception to the lex loci uelecti iule - this aigument fails
! The lowei couits geneially weie veiy enthusiastic about finuing an inteinational exception anu applying
the alteinative iule of lex foii
! This case is typical in that the Couit of Appeal shoots it uown anu says, no, this isn't it
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
128
M134=
! This was a cai acciuent in NY between an 0ntaiio anu NY iesiuent
! The 0ntaiio iesiuent sues in 0ntaiio
! The 0ntaiio plaintiff wants to invoke the inteinational exception - he wants 0ntaiio law to apply
! The NY uefenuant applieu foi ueclaiation that NY law woulu apply - he wants the oiuinaiy iule
! Theie aie a numbei of ielateu issues which iequiie the couit to make a uecision about the piopei
chaiacteiization (pioceuuialsubstantive)
! Costs
! Pie-juugment inteiest
! Quantification of uamages
! CA says this is not a fact pattein that ueseives to get out of the oiuinaiy choice of law iule anu into the
exception - uiffeient states but no ieason to apply 0ntaiio law
! The S 3012134526714689 issues aie quite inteiesting anu the BC couits woulu piobably chaiacteiize these
issues the same way as the 0NCA:
! Costs aie pioceuuial (so 0ntaiio laws apply)
! Quantification of uamages is pioceuuial
! S$*<8 of uamage, howevei, aie substantive
! 0nce you figuie out the heau of uamages, the foium then ueciues on the quantification
! Piejuugment inteiest is substantive
! Because it is substantive, it will be goveineu by lex loci uelecti (NY law)
! This is piobably how a BC couit woulu uo this
! The English uisagiee:
! English Couit of Appeal in 2uu9 saiu pie-juugment inteiest is pioceuuial
! Someis case was actually citeu in the Eng CA
! Why uiu they uo this.
! Fiist thing the couit saiu: it's uiffeient statutoiy language
! Also couit pointeu out that pie-juugment inteiest in Englanu is uiscietionaiy
! Eng CA says you can't get pie-juugment inteiest unless you aie successful in youi litigation
! So you can't pleau it
! This case is typical of the appellate view on the inteinational exception but we haven't hau a goou case on
it yet
>)"&( W(&$(&)01(" W)'% OaGO /))
! Involveu uefamation
! In this case, LeBel } floateu a uiffeient choice of law iule foi uefamation actions
M134=
! Banio was a book publishei in Quebec, they publisheu a book (Noii Canaua) which uealt with Canauian
mining companies mining inteinationally, anu saiu nasty things about them
! Causeu 2 mining companies to claim uefamation
! They biing an action in 0ntaiio
! The publication in 0ntaiio: Suuu Fiench euitions weie piinteu, 9S copies weie uistiibuteu in 0ntaiio, they
weie also available online anu in libiaiies
! So 0ntaiio has juiisuiction, because the toit "occuiieu" in 0ntaiio foi juiisuiction puiposes (van Bieua -
ieal anu substantial connection - toit occuiieu theie, that is a sufficient connection foi ieal anu
substantial connection foi juiisuiction simplicitei)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
129
! Couit went on to consiuei whethei 0ntaiio was the most appiopiiate foium foi the action
! In the couise of consiueiing this, LeBel } consiueis what law will be applieu - he consiueis the choice of
law iule (which is what you have to uo when uealing with juiisuiction - it is a ielevant factoi)
! Be concluues that they shoulu ueciue this anothei uay, but we shoulu pay close attention to these kinus of
uiscussions by SCC - so this is a veiy impoitant case on the choice of law iule in uefamation
! uoes back to Tolofson - LeBel says it is flexible anu the case left ioom foi cieating new exceptions
K U5 =;QQ5=4= 4014 405 1JJC631<C5 Q8>52969Q C1_ S82 @5S1F14689 134689= =08;C@ <5 405 C1_ 8S 405 JC135
8S 405 I&/$ /(^/$-#$"-. U-%I 48 405 25J;414689 8S 405 JC16946SS
! This selection of a single legal system to govein uefamation makes sense in light of the fact that the
publication can happen all ovei the woilu (especially with the inteinet)
! Lex loci uelicti uoesn't woik because the toit occuiieu in eveiy juiisuiction wheie the publication
happeneu - but you neeu foi choice of law puiposes to select a single legal system so it makes most sense
(says LeBel }) to select as the goveining law foi the meiits of a uefamation action the placelegal system
wheie the plaintiff's ieputation has been most uamageu
! It is LIKELY the law that will be applieu by lowei couits because we pay close attention to the SCC - the
pioblem will be to ueciue what legal system is iuentifieu by that choice of law iule
)8942134=
! 4*1" C)'<1; shipping case:
! 0ne juuge finus the paities actually chose a piopei law foi theii contiact (even though they faileu to
incluue a clause)
! The othei juuge says theie is no hint, anu objectively ueteimines the piopei law
! It uoesn't make a uiffeience in the enu
\10) ^((;' 3 T"/' 9<1$$1"2 GTPT (]?)
! Canauian case on appeal fiom NS
! Typically, the PC is stating "Canauian law" (common law) as well as "English law" at the same time
! So this case is an impoitant case in the common law woilu of contiact iules
! It is a shipping contiact
! The contiact was to caiiy goous (heiiing.) fiom NFL to NY
! @".$( This is 19S9 - NFL was not yet pait of Canaua, a sepaiate Bominion
! The contiact is maue, the bills of lauing aie issueu in NF
! They aie to be ueliveieupeifoimeu in NY
! The bills of lauing hau two impoitant clauses:
! Fiist - exempting the uefenuant fiom liability aiising foim negligence of the mastei
! Seconu (of ciitical impoitance) - stateu the contiact shoulu be goveineu by English law
! What happeneu: theie is a stoim at sea, the mastei is negligent, the ship washes up in NS, anu the heiiing
aie uamageu
! @".$( They ieconuitioneu the heiiing anu solu them
! Theie is litigation in NS
! That's wheie the ship was, wheie the company was, wheie the uefenuant was, so theie was no
juiisuiction issue
! At the tiial, in NS, the plaintiff aigueu that the bills of lauing weie voiu anu theiefoie the ship was a
common caiiiei anu theie was no exclusion foi negligence
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1Su
! $05 12Q;F594 _1=: if the bills of lauing (which was goveineu by the law of Englanu) weie voiu, then
the oiuinaiy iules of toitnegligence woulu apply anu so theie woulu be no exclusion of negligence
! If the law of Englanu goveins, the bills of lauing aie valiu, the Bague convention applies, anu theie
is no liability foi negligence
u @".$( .-$ S*&2$ 5"';$'.%"' "'1+ *::1%$8 ." 5"'.#*5.
! If the bills of lauing aie invaliu, the Bague convention uoesn't apply, oiuinaiy toit law applies,
theie is liability foi negligence
! 0n what basis coulu the plaintiff be aiguing that bills weie voiu.
! The aigument was the contiact was illegal because it faileu to comply with the NFL statute of
19S2 which iequiieu that eveiy bill of lauing issueu in NFL
! Theiefoie the contiact was voiu
! In NS, they ignoieu the conflicts issues
! The case goes up to PC anu theie aie a numbei of issues in the case which aie impoitant contiact issues in
conflict of laws:
1. The piopei law of the contiact
! What is the piopei law of the contiact.
2. Question of illegality
S. Issue about incoipoiation of law
! Because not only uiu the paities to the bills of lauing acciuentally fail to comply with the 19S2
statute, but the bills of lauing also iefeiieu to the Ameiican Caitei Act. anu incoipoiateu that
! Note: Incoipoiation of a law oi statute by iefeience is not the same as selecting the piopei law to
govein the contiact
! If you incoipoiate a law (in conflicts), it is as if you have ieenacteu the whole thing
! So you have all the piovisions of the statute, but then you have chosen the law to govein all the
contiact as the law of Englanu
K /8 405 i62=4 h;5=4689 S82 405 ?) 6= _014 6= 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 406= 38942134d
! Is it the law of Englanu oi is it some othei law.
K $05 ?) @536@5= k406= 6= 405 3;22594 2;C5l 4014 82@69126CDg 19 5BJ25== 8S 308635 8S C1_ 3C1;=5 _6CC
@5452F695 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 ^($ 405 ?) _1= 984 _6CC69Q 48 Q6>5 1<=8C;45 @5S525935
48 405 J12465=j 308635 8S C1_ kJ124D 1;4898FDl
! They gave it veiy gieat weight but not consiueieu to be absolute at common law
! In ceitain ciicumstances, we might not uefei to paity autonomy
! The passage citeu (p. 7u8) - "But wheie the English iule that intention is the test applies, anu
wheie theie is an expiess statement by the paities of theii intention to select the law of the
contiact, it is uifficult to see what qualifications aie possible, pioviueu the intention expiesseu is
bona fiue anu legal, anu pioviueu theie is no ieason foi avoiuing the choice on the giounu of
public policy."
! Numbei of cases in which an expiess choice of law clause has '". been uefeiieu to aie few anu fai in
between
! The theoiy is: you aie tiying to avoiu application of some law that woulu otheiwise apply
! Contiaiy to foium public policy - makes sense - that is anothei issue
! So we have a iule that says an expiess choice of law clause is almost absolute but not quite absolute,
so you might have some chance of getting out of it (but EE thinks slim)
K $05 84052 6FJ824194 4069Q 1<8;4 406= 31=5
K $0525 955@ <5 98 3899534689 <54_559 405 38942134 k_014 6= 48 <5 @895 ;9@52 405 38942134lg
19@ 405 C1_ =5C5345@ 48 Q8>529 405 38942134;1C 25C14689= 8S 405 J12465= 48 405 38942134
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S1
! 0n its face, theie is no connection between NS anu NF anu NY - you uon't have to have a
connection - D8; -%, J52F6445@KJ26936JC5 8S C1_ 8S 1;4898FD k1= 1JJC65@ <D 405 38FF89
C1_l 1CC8_= J12465= 48 1 38942134 48 3088=5 1 38FJC545CD ;969>8C>5@ 4062@ C5Q1C =D=45F
! B0T theie is a iisk foi contiacting paities when they choose a legal system about which they
known zilch
! 0ne of the ieasons that so many English contiact conflict cases exist is that many contiacting
paities choose the law of Englanu
u b#*5.%5*1 .%:( +"2 ,*'. ." 4*E$ 82#$ +"2 -*;$ <#*!.$< +"2# 5-"%5$ "! 1*, 51*28$ 82!V%5%$'.1+ 7#"*<1+
8" *8 ." $'5"4:*88 *'+ %882$8 *#%8%'& "2. "! .-$ 5"'.#*5. O%! .-*. %8 ,-*. +"2 ,*'.P
! So piima facie, the bills of lauing is goveineu by the law of Englanu
! The next question is: what to uo about the NFL 19S2 statute - what is the effect of the statute.
! The statute which is pait of the law of the place wheie the contiact was maue
! We bieak uown the connections in a contiact action
! We look at:
! $05 S82;F (in this case NS - a uisinteiesteu thiiu juiisuiction)
! $05 +%H +(:1 :("0&):0/' k..)l - the law of the place wheie the contiact was maue
! $05 +%H +(:1 '(+/01("1' k../l - the law of the place wheie the contiact is to be peifoimeu
! $05 J28J52 C1_
! In this case:
! Foium is NS
! LLC is NF
! LLS is NY
! Piopei law - law of Englanu
! Theie is N0 coinciuence of any of the connections - in anothei case, you might get the foium
coiiesponuing with the piopei law, foi example
! In this case, theie is no coinciuenceoveilap
! So the question is: what is the foium going to uo - it is going to apply the law of Englanu.
! Assume that the NF statute woulu ienuei the bills of lauing voiu
K V014 @85= 405 J28J52 C1_ kC1_ 8S ,9QC19@l =1D 1<8;4 6CC5Q1C64D <D 405 C1_ 8S 405 JC135
_0525 405 38942134 _1= F1@5d
! Loiu Wiight says: we uon't caie - we uon't take any notice of illegality in the place wheie the
contiact was maue
! If it is illegality by the piopei law - that's a pioblem, that is a slam uunk
! If it is illegality by the LLS - that's ielevant
! If it is illegality in foium - may woulu be inteiest
! But if it is illegality in the LLC - this is the only one we uon't pay any attention to
! Bowevei: if we weie sitting as a NFL couit, we might have to apply the law of NFL
! When the legislatuie enacts a law in BC anu it is a manuatoiy law, BC couits have to apply it,
uepenuing on the inteipietation of the statute
! ?28J8=64689: foium couits 4%&-. appioach the inteipietation anu application of theii 0WN foium
laws uiffeiently fiom the couits of a S
,+
legal system
! So if we weie sitting as a NFL couit, we might feel that we hau to apply the 19S2 NFL statute
because theie woulu be a coinciuence between the LLC anu the foium
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S2
! Bowevei if the 19S2 statute ,$#$ ielevant, then Loiu Wiight says we woulu have to ueciue how it
shoulu be inteipieteu anu whethei it shoulu inueeu voiu the contiact
! The categoiies useu: uiiectoiy anu manuatoiyobligatoiy
! Aie you just auvising us oi aie you #$U2%#%'& us to incluue this statement in the bills of lauing.
! Loiu Wiight says: just uiiecting
! So even if NFL law weie helu to be applicable, it woulun't voiu the contiact
K $06= 6= 405 C51@69Q 31=5 89 5BJ25== 308635 8S C1_ 3C1;=5= 19@ 40562 h;1C6i6314689=
K -C=8 89 6CC5Q1C64D <D 405 ..)
C1:<)&;'(" !"0%&")01(")+ K0; 3 M-' W<1U<):<%3) OaaO M)-
! Litigation involving the existence of a maiitime lien.
! Richaiuson is a washington state company
! The main ship, Chikhacheva is a Russian tiollei
! Richaiuson supplies necessaiies foi the tiollei anu 2 othei vessels in the Russian fleet
! The vessel in question is aiiesteu in Nanaimo (it hau naileu something to the mass)
! This gives %' #$4 juiisuiction
! Action is biought claiming a lien against the tiollei in the amount of $SS7,uuu
! The existencevaliuity of the maiitime lien uepenus on the piopei law of the contiact
! Choice between Russian law oi Ameiican law of some Ameiican state
! Theie is no choice of law clause in the contiact
! The question foi the couit is, uo we finu an implieu choice oi uo we go foi the objectively asceitaineu
piopei law of the contiact
! The ieasons foi juugment stiess all the factois that aie consiueieu
! They talk about the totality of the contiactual ielationship between the paities
! 0ne of the clauses consiueieu in the contiact is an aibitiation clause
! Aibitiation is to take place in the 0S
K $05 38;24 ;=5= 405 12<64214689 3C1;=5 1= 1 $(1"0%& 48 405 J12465=j 134;1C 694594689 m 405D 1Q255@ 4014
405D _8;C@ 12<642145g 405D 1Q255@ VU,%, 405D _8;C@ 12<642145
! Couit finus that the aibitiation clause is veiy weighty anu the paities have an implieu intention that the
law of Washington state shoulu govein the contiact
! 0ne othei point - this case is typical in that it looks at the aibitiation clause as a pointei to the paities'
actual intention
! The couit says:
! The T} took oial testimony of one of the paities to the contiact to what was intenueu
! FCA says D8; @89j4 41f5 5>6@5935 =;<=5h;594CD as to what was intenueu, you uo it on the basis of
what is wiitten in the contiact
! This is one of the few cases in which you can say that the couit actually founu implieu intention because it
says that's what it is uoing
! Lookeu at the contiact itself as well as anothei clause
! 0thei pointeis couits have lookeu at:
! Law of the flag, etc.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1SS
! 0ne case iefeiieu to in 4*1" C)'<1;E the paities put a clause in the contiact saying the piopei law is the
law of the flag
! This maue peifect sense but when the couit lookeu at the facts, they founu that they useu 6 uiffeient
ships of uiffeient nationalities
K /&: `8; 319 C88f 69 405 38942134
K "S D8;j25 C88f69Q S82 6FJC65@ 694594 m D8;j25 C88f69Q _64069 405 L 382952= 8S 405 38942134 m 405
C19Q;1Q5 ;=5@g 543! m D8;j25 #&$ C88f69Q 8;4=6@5 48 42D 48 @5452F695 405 694594689 8S 405 J12465=
!*$%&1)+ K16% 4''/&)":% W(*$)"- (6 W)");) 3 W(+*%")&%' GTAR /))
! Leauing case in Canaua
! uiitchie }.
! Involveu insuiance policies
! The insuiance policies weie issueu thiough the company's bianch office in Bavannah
! The contiacts weie wiitten in Spanish but they weie in 0ntaiio foim
! Payment was to be in Ameiican uollais, bank uiaft uiawn on a bank in NY
! But all the piemiums weie paiu in Cuban cuiiency in Cuba
! The policy-holuei wanteu to suiienuei the policy anu get the cash suiienuei value
! The question foi SCC: whethei the insuiance company was obligateu to pay
! If the contiacts weie goveineu by the law of Cuba, then the insuiance company coulu get out of paying
cash suiienuei value because theie was a Cuban law that ienueieu payment illegal
! The SCC hau to ueciue wheie the piopei law of the contiact was the law of 0ntaiio oi the law of Cuba
! The SCC helu that the piopei law of the contiact was the law of 0ntaiio
! Because the piopei law of the contiact was the law of 0ntaiio, the insuiance company was obligateu to
pay up
K $05 h;5=4689 6=: 08_ @6@ 405 /)) Q8 1<8;4 @5452F6969Q 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134d
! Theie is no expiess choice of law clause
u Y! ,$ .*E$ :*#.+ *2."'"4+ ." %.8 1"&%5*1 5"'5128%"'> .-$ :*#.%$8 "2&-. ." 7$ *71$ ." 8*+ .-$ :#":$# 1*,
"! .-$ 5"'.#*5. %8 .-$ 1*, "! M'&1*'< *8 %. $A%8.$< *. .-*. .%4$ R ,-+ 5*'C. +"2 8$1$5. .-$ 1*, *8 %.
$A%8.8 *. .-$ .%4$ +"2 $'.$# %'." .-$ 5"'.#*5. R .-%8 -*8'C. 7$$' .$8.$< 7+ :*#.%$8 ." * 5"'.#*5.
u c-$ 5%#5248.*'5$8 2'<$# ,-%5- +"2 4%&-. ,*'. ." 5"'.$4:1*.$ .-%8 %8 %! +"2 E'", .-$#$ %8
1$&%81*.%"' "' .-$ .*71$ .-*. 4%&-. 5-*'&$
u /2. +"2 4%&-. '". 8255$$<
! Ritchie }. speaking foi a unanimous couit finus that the law of 0ntaiio
K M82F;C1 05 1@8J4=: 41f59 S28F ,9QC6=0 31=5 m c$05 =;<=41935 8S 405 8<C6Q14689 F;=4 <5
@5452F695@ <D 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134g 6!5!g 405 =D=45F 8S C1_ <D 25S525935 48 _0630 405
38942134 _1= F1@5 82 4014 _640 _0630 405 4219=134689 01@ 64= 3C8=5=4 19@ F8=4 251C
3899534689!e
! Be is putting these two phiases in the alteinative
! "the system of law by iefeience to which the contiact was maue" - iefeiiing to actual subjective
choice
K c4014 _640 _0630 405 4219=134689 01@ 64= 3C8=5=4 19@ F8=4 251C 3899534689e m 25S52269Q 48
8<Z5346>5CD 1=35241695@ J28J52 C1_
! This is the foimula auopteu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S4
! The SCC looks at all the factois:
! Looks at the place wheie the contiact was maue - ueciues it was maue in 0ntaiio
! Looks at othei ielevant factois anu ueciues the piopei law of the contiact was the law of 0ntaiio
! This is wheie the heau office was
! The heau office maintaineu contiol
! They expecteu it woulu be goveineu by the law of 0ntaiio
u @(0%E MM .-%'E8 .-%8 %8 81%::%'& 7*5E %'." *5.2*1 5-"%5$ *8 <%8.%'5. !#"4 "7H$5.%;$1+
*85$#.*%'$< :#":$# 1*,
u N-$' +"2 *#$ %'." "7H$5.%;$1+ *85$#.*%'$< :#":$# 1*, "! .-$ 5"'.#*5.> +"2 1""E ." ,-*.
#$*8"'*71$ 5"'.#*5.%'& :*#.%$8 ,"21< -*;$ $A:$5.$< '". ,-*. .-$ *5.2*1 :*#.%$8
$A:$5.$<
! So this is the leauing case foi objectively asceitaineu piopei law
4*1" C)'<%%; 9<1$$1"2 W(&$ 3 N/,)10 !"'/&)":% GTEL (]U.
! This was a majoi house of loius case in the peiiou when the house of loius was ueveloping juiisuiction
iules
! It is a juiisuiction case not a choice of law case
! The action hau been biought in Englanu (unuei 0iuei 11) anu the uefenuants in the English action have
objecteu not just to the juiisuiction of the english couit but also to the appiopiiateness of the english couit
! Theie is an insuiance contiact at issue
! The ships that aie insuieu aie opeiating in the Aiabian gulf
! The paiticulai vessel is seizeu by the Sauui Aiabian authoiities, its mastei anu ciew aie impiisoneu anu
the ship is appaiently confiscateu on the basis that it was involveu in smuggling
! So this is a claim in Englanu against the insuiance company foi the loss of the ship which hau been insuieu
! The insuiance contiact (typically) hau no choice of law clause
! Yet the English 0iuei 11(basis foi seivice $A H2#8%8) was piemiseu on the existence of a contiact which was
Q8>5295@ <D 59QC6=0 C1_
! The way in which oiuei 11 hau been inteipieteu was: a contiact goveineu by English law expiessly oi
objectively asceitaineu - uiun't ieally make too much uiffeience
! This case is faiily typical of many Bouse of Loius cases because these aie juiisuiction cases - not choice of
law - they haven't gotten to the meiits yet
K $05 12Q;F594 6= D8; @89j4 01>5 Z;26=@634689 <531;=5 406= 38942134 6= 984 Q8>5295@ <D ,9QC6=0
C1_ 19@ 405 JC16946SS= 125 =1D69Qg D5= 64 6=
K /8 405D Q8 1CC 405 _1D ;J 405 U. 48 @536@5 _014 6= 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 69 82@52 48 i69@
6S 405D 5>59 U-\, Z;26=@634689 =8 405D 319 =4124 8>52 1Q169 89 405 F5264= m q28CC= 5D5=q
! Think about it: You can't have a contiact in a legal vacuum
! But these paities hau been living in a legal vacuum foi yeais because they hau this ueal which hau no
choice of law clause
! They uiun't know what law applieu to theii contiact
! Theie is no connection with Englanu except foi the fact that the actual insuiance policy was an English
foim
! The paities:
! The plaintiffs (ship owneis) weie a Libeiian compay caiiying on business in Bubai
! The uefenuants aie a Kuwaiti insuiance company
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1SS
! Neithei one is connecteu to Englanu
! But they useu this English foim - maiine insuiance policy foim
! It is in English language
! It is a foim in accoiuance with an English Act
! The money is Steiling (pounus) but it is payable in Kuwait anu the contiact of insuiance is maue in
kuwait
! At the time that these paities enteieu into a contiact of insuiance in Kuwait, Kuwait hau no inuigenous
maiine law - they haun't inventeu it yetcopieu it yet
! They hau uone so by the time of the litigation but he new Kuwaiti maiitime insuiance law was not
ietioactive
! So the question is: what is the piopei law of this contiact. Englanu oi Kuwait.
! We neeu to know that to know whethei we have juiisuiction
! 0n the way up to the Bouse of Loius, theie weie maikeu uivisions of juuicial opinion
! 0ltimately, the BL ueciueu that the piopei law of the contiact was English (so they -*;$ juiisuiction)
! But they then went on to ueciue that the appiopiiate foium foi the action was Kuwait - so they sent the
paities back to litigate in Kuwait
K $05 694525=469Q 1=J534 8S 405 31=5 S28F 405 J8694 8S >65_ 8S 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134:
! In the two juugments - Loiu Biplock anu Loiu Wilbeifoice - they come to the same conclusion - that
English law is the piopei law of the contiact
! Loiu Biplock finus an implieu choice
! Stiange thing about this: nobouy hau aigueu that - evei (tiial, CA, evei)
! Loiu Wilbeifoice says: objectively asceitaineu piopei law of the contiact
! vaiious ciicumstances anu factois they look at - they vaiy fiom case to case
! The point is: the piocess of ueteimining the piopei law (objectively asceitaineu) is that it is
like !"#24 '"' 5"';$'%$'8 - you list all the ielevant factois but uiffeient juuges anu counsel
paities give uiffeient weight to uiffeient factois
! You've got that ,$%&-%'& of the ciicumstances ieflecteu paiticulaily in Loiu Wilbeifoice's
juugment
! Bow coulu the English Bouse of Loius senu the litigation back to Kuwait when Kuwait uiun't have any
inuigenous maiitime insuiance law.
! Kuwait hau conflicts iules
! So the English BL was suie that Kuwait woulu be able to solve the pioblem of the piopei law of the
contiact by applying English law
! They woulu finu a law to apply because they have conflicts iules
M1++%& 3O ]%"0,(&0<I`J G'0)0%' (]U.
! The ciicumstances weie veiy evenly balanceu between the contents of the contiact anu the foim of the
contiact anu what was to be uone unuei the contiact, anu wheie it was to be uone
! This is a case in which the ielevant contiactual piovisions anu the ielevant paits of what is to be uone
unuei the contiact piovision aie almost equally balanceu
! BL hau to ieach a conclusion as to the piopei law of the contiact
M134=
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S6
! The paities weie fiom 2 uiffeient countiies - between an English company anu a Scottish company
! The Scottish company agiees to caiiy out ceitain woik conveiting builuings locateu in Scotlanu but owneu
by the English company
! So it is a builuing contiact
! The contiact was concluueu in Scotlanu
! The foim of the contiact was the stanuaiu "English Royal Institute of Biitish Aichitects" foim - a stanuaiu
English foim
! The contiact containeu an aibitiation clause but theie was no place iuentifieu foi the aibitiation shoulu
aibitiation be neeueu
! Insteau, the Piesiuent of the Royal Institute of Biitish Aichitects was given the iesponsibility to nominate
the aibitiatoi
! It was a Scottish aibitiatoi who was nominateu
! The aichitect foi this conveision was an English aichitect
! So you have almost evenly balanceu factual connections fiom which ueuuctions can be uiawn
Belu
! Case goes up to Bouse of Loius
! 2 loius: piopei law of the contiact is the law of Englanu
! 2 loius: piopei law of the contiact is the law of Scotlanu
! S
'(
loiu: he went with the majoiity
! Be lookeu back to the tiial, couit of appeal, house of loius anu a baie majoiity of juuges along the
way hau gone with English law
! 0ltimately, the iesult was that the English law was the piopei law of the contiact
! The point: when you get to ueteimining the piopei law of the contiact objectively, you shoulu not
necessaiily, absolutely, excluue any consiueiation of the contiact itself - that shoulu be alloweu to factoi
into it
M):U%";%& 3 ^%+;1) 4V GTAR (])-
! A juiisuiction case
! The question is: is theie some othei basis foi seivice ex juiis that assumes the existence of a contiact.
! In Englanu, it is the contiact is NABE in Englanu
! It involves an insuiance policy issueu by an insuiance company
! This insuiance policy was intenueu to covei uiamonu meichants, which weie incoipoiateu in Switzeilanu,
Belgium anu Italy
! The insuiance policy, which was issueu in 1964, containeu a choice of law clause in a choice of juiisuiction
clause
! The choice of law clause names the law of Belgium as the piopei law of the contiact anu gives exclusive
juiisuiction to the couits of Belgium
! 196S: the uiamonu meichants of Italy - theie is a loss of uiamonus
! Natuially, they claim on the insuiance policy
! Natuially, the insuiance company investigates
! The uefenuant in this action claims to have uiscoveieu that the uiamonu meichants weie smuggling
uiamonus into Italy anu that these uiamonus that hau been lost hau been smuggleu into Italy
! So they say they aie not obligateu to pay up because of non-uisclosuie
! The action oiiginally is commenceu in Belgium anu then Lloyu's (the insuiance company) staits this action
in Englanu - so we have paiallel actions (Teck Cominco)
! Seivice ex juiis has been effecteu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S7
K $05 h;5=4689 S82 405 )- 6= _054052 ,9QC19@ 01= Z;26=@634689 19@ _054052 ,9QC19@ 6= 405 F8=4
1JJ28J26145 S82;F S82 405 134689
! The aigument is that the contiact has been voiueu by non-uisclosuie, theiefoie, because the contiact is
voiu, the choice of juiisuiction clause uoesn't exist
K "S 405 308635 8S Z;26=@634689 3C1;=5 @85=9j4 5B6=4g 4014j= 1 >52D _56Q04D S13482 4014 405 38;24 _6CC
984 01>5 48 389=6@52 69 5B5236=69Q 64= @6=3254689
! As fai as juiisuiction was conceineu, the couit ielieu on the fact that the contiact hau been maue in
Englanu
K $06= @6=3;==689 6= 89CD 1<8;4 @6=3254689 19@ 405 5SS534 8S 405 12Q;F594 89 405 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q
3C1;=5 m 6= 64 Q895 82 @85= 64 5B6=4d
! Loiu Benning anu Loiu Biplock take slightly uiffeient appioaches
! Loiu Benning automatically applies English law
! 0f couise theie was a contiact
! Be applies English law
! Effective non-uisclosuie
! Be takes the view (iemembei SCC in F(*$%- !";/'0&- wheie the aigument was that fiustiation
voiueu the contiact anu Bastaiasch } tieats the juiisuiction selection clause as having suiviveu
iegaiuless of the outcome of the uefence of the contiact) - this is what Loiu Benning uoes
K U5 =1D=g 405 Z;26=@634689 =5C53469Q 3C1;=5 1JJC65= 19D_1Dg _5 _6CC 42514 64 1= =5J121<C5 19@ _5
_6CC _82f 64 6948 8;2 5B5236=5 8S 8;2 @6=3254689
! Loiu Biplock auuiesses the conflicts issues
! This question it is aigueu is to be ueteimineu not by Belgian law but by J;4146>5g 8<Z5346>5g J28J52
C1_g a concept which I finu confusing but which is saiu in this case to be English law
! Loiu Biplock uoesn't agiee that that shoulu be the English choice of law iule
! Beciues that if theie is an aigument maue (at the juiisuictional stage) that theie is no contiact, the
English couit shoulu use the law of the F0R0N anu unless the aigument is "'"' $8 !*5.249 (they
simply uiun't agiee at all), you tieat the contiact as in existence foi juiisuictional puiposes, anu then,
uefeiiing to the juiisuiction selecting clause piesuming they hau a juiisuiction selecting clause, the
effect of that non-uisclosuie woulu be ueciueu by the substantive law applieu to the meiits - anu that
woulu be the law of Belgium
! Because if it is on the meiits, you'ie going to ueciue on the meiits
! In this case, it is haiu to say theie was no contiact because theie BAB been an agieement - but the
aigument was that the non-uisclosuie voiueu that agieement
K /8 406= 31=5 6= 1;408264D S82 405 J28J8=64689: 6S 64 6= 1 "(" %' 6):/0*g 6S 405 12Q;F594 6= 40525 6= 98
38942134 14 405 Z;26=@6346891C =41Q5g _5jCC @536@5 4014 40525 6= 1 <1=63 1Q255F594 <54_559 405 J12465=
m 984 1CC 405 452F= 9535==126CD <;4 =8F5 S82F 8S 1Q255F594
! The authoiity foi the putative piopei law of the contiact iule, which Loiu Biplock uoes not apply
4+B%U( 9:</<*)':<1"%" 4V 3 N)*B(&1)" 9<(% M):<1"% W( GTAG (])-
! Anothei juiisuiction case
! Befenuants aie in Englanu, the plaintiffs in Switzeilanu, hau been negotiating the teims of a contiact with
an exchange of letteis
! They weie attempting to negotiate an aiiangement unuei which the Swiss plaintiffs weie going to be
agents in Switzeilanu to sell shoe machines manufactuieu in Englanu by the uefenuant
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S8
! Swiss plaintiffs actually solu 4 machines. anu they saiu, now pay us
! The English uefenuants saiu, nope, we uiun't agiee to pay you
! Swiss plaintiffs saiu we posteu a lettei of acceptance - you sent us an offei, we accepteu it anu we posteu
that acceptance to you
! The uefenuants in Englanu say, we nevei got the lettei
! Theie was no eviuence to show that this lettei was evei posteu
K $05 J28<C5F 69 406= 31=5 _1= 4014 ,9QC6=0 C1_ 01@ 895 2;C5 S82 @536@69Q 89 405 S82F14689 8S 1
38942134 <D J8=4 19@ /_6== C1_ 01@ 1 @6SS52594 2;C5
! English law: the contiact is concluueu upon posting the acceptance
! Swiss law: theie is no contiact until the lettei is actually ieceiveu
! So whose law is going to be goveining the contiact.
! English CA helu that even if it hau been establisheu that the lettei hau been posteu, he still woulu have
helu that no contiact hau come into existence because 405 J;4146>5 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 _8;C@
01>5 <559 405 C1_ 8S /_64752C19@
5<% F)&(/0< GTEO (])-
! Anothei juiisuiction case
! The plaintiff is a shipownei (a Panamanian company)
! The uefenuant is a Floiiua company
! The ship (the Paiouth) is iegisteieu unuei a uieek flag, is manageu by a Belgian company anu the
shipmates aie ueiman
! The caigo was to be shippeu fiom ueimany to Nexico
! The payments aie to be maue in Belgium in 0S uollais
! The question foi the English couit is: uo we have juiisuiction.
! The allegeu contiact consists of a bunch of telexes
K &95 8S 405 45C5B5= J28J8=5= 4014 69 405 5>594 8S 1 @6=J;45 ;9@52 406= 38942134 69 405 J2835== 8S
<569Q 95Q846145@g 40525 =08;C@ <5 12<64214689 69 .89@89
K $05 )- i6B5= 89 406=: =1D= 405 J;4146>5 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134 _8;C@ 01>5 <559 ,9QC6=0 C1_
<531;=5 405D _525 Q869Q 48 12<642145 69 .89@89 69 405 5>594 8S 1 @6=J;45 8>52 405 38942134 _0630
98_ 405D =1D @85=9j4 5B6=4
V&%%"'<1%+;' !":O 3 7(<"'(" GTEG -^X^
! The tiial level uecision (appaiently) iepiesents the common law choice of law iule foi ueteimining foimal
valiuity of a contiact
! Theie aie no othei contenueis as theie weie foi foimation of a contiact
! But the choice of law iule itself is a iule IN TBE ALTERNATIvE (just like foimal valiuity of a maiiiage)
K $05 Z;=46i6314689 S82 01>69Q 1 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5 69 405 1C4529146>5 k=146=SD 406= C5Q1C =D=45F (&
406= 84052 C5Q1C =D=45Fl 6= 4014:
! Foi 1$A 1"5% 5"'.#*5.28: contiacting paities shoulu be fiee to take legal auvice about foimalities in
the place wheie they happen to be contiacting - so they aie alloweu to take local auvice
! Alteinatively, if these contiacting paities aie 8$1$5.%'& a piopei law to govein theii contiactual
ielations, they ought to be able to iely on that law anu satisfy any iequiiement fiom TBAT legal
system foi the foimal valiuity of the contiact
K /&: S82F1C >1C6@64D 8S 1 38942134 6= Q8>5295@ ,"$U,% <D 405 C1_ 8S 405 JC135 _0525 405 38942134 _1=
F1@5 &% <D 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134
! In this case, the contiact itself was maue in Albeita
! The paities to the contiact selecteu the law of 0ntaiio as the piopei law of the contiact - theie was an
expiess choice of law clause
! The contiact in question is a contiact of guaiantee
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S9
! Befenuant is an Albeita uefenuant
! Bis uefence is this guaiantee is voiu - it uiu not comply with the Albeita l2*#*'.$$ 35E'",1$<&$4$'. 35.
! 0nuei that statute, they woulu have hau to have gone to a notaiy befoie signing the guaiantee
! The objective was to piotect people guaianteeing othei people so they knew what they weie uoing
anu when they woulu be liable
! Theie hau been no appeaiance by the contiacting paities befoie a notaiy so theie cleaily was a bieach of
the V/)&)"0%% 4:U"(,+%;2%*%"0 4:0 8S -C<5241 (the place wheie the contiact was enteieu into anu
peifoimeu.)
K )012134526714689 6==;5: S82F1C >1C6@64D 8S 405 38942134
! Alteinative #1: Lex loci contiactus. - Albeita
! Alteinative #2: Piopei law of the contiact. - 0ntaiio
! 0ntaiio has no l2*#*'.$$ 35E'",1$<&$4$'. 35.
K "= 40525 19D 251=89 984 48 1JJCD 405 C1_ 8S &941268 69 406= 31=5d
! Bona fiue
! Legal
! Not contiaiy to public policy
! 0ntaiio is the piopei law of the contiact
! S0: contiact is foimally valiu
K )1=5 Q85= 89 1JJ51C
! The Albeita Couit of Appeal comes to the same iesult but on a completely uiffeient basis
! The CA uoes not accept the chaiacteiization of the allegeu uefect as an issue going to the foimal
valiuity of the contiact
! $05D =16@ 406= 6= 19 6==;5 8S =;<=41935 >=! J2835@;25 - "Bow shoulu we chaiacteiize the Albeita
uuaiantee Acknowleugement Act. Is it a question of substance oi a question of pioceuuie."
K "S 64 6= 1 2;C5 8S J2835@;25g 405 C1_ 8S 405 S82;F 1JJC65=
! The contiact woulu be voiu because theie haun't been compliance with the Albeita statute
! Theie woulu be no iecoveiy fiom the guaiantoi
K "S 405 =414;45 6= 301213452675@ 1= =;<=41946>5 C1_g 405 38942134 6= Q8>5295@ <D 405 C1_ 8S
&941268 19@ 984 405 C1_ 8S -C<5241g =8 64 @85=9j4 1JJCD
! Anu this is what the CA ueciues
! The statute uoes not apply because it is substantive
! MM <"$8'C. *&#$$ R 72. ,$ <"'C. 5*#$ R .-*. %8 * 5-*#*5.$#%G*.%"' %882$
K !6 1" ;(/B08 -(/ :<)&):0%&1=% )' '/B'0)"013% "(0 $&(:%;/&)+
! The point is this: if you chaiacteiize the issue as foimal valiuity of the contiact, you'ie going to get two
chances of having foimeu a valiu contiact - eithei one will woik, in the alteinative
! Wheieas if you chaiacteiize the issue as one of substance vs. pioceuuie, it is an eitheioi pioposition -
eithei it is pioceuuial oi substantive, eithei it applies oi it uoesn't
@)&)A1 3 9<%+B(/&"% OaGG (]X^
! The soccei playei who was injuieu anu hau suigeiy in the States but the suigeiy was botcheu
! Be wanteu to sue the uoctois in Inuiana who opeiateu on him anu in Inuiana, theie was a statute which
saiu you coulu not sue an Inuiana uoctoi in contiact unless theie was a wiitten contiact signeu by the
uoctoi
! Natuially theie was no signeu contiact heie
K /8 405 h;5=4689 S82 405 ,9QC6=0 38;24 _1=: 08_ 48 301213452675 406= 6==;5d
K $0525 6= 98 @6=3;==689 69 405 251=89= S82 Z;@QF594 1= 48 _054052 406= Q85= 48 S82F1C >1C6@64D 82
_054052 64 6= 1 h;5=4689 8S =;<=41935 >=! J2835@;25
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
14u
! The T} goes uiiectly to substance vs pioceuuie - ueciues it is pioceuuial
! The statute iequiiing that the contiact be eviuenceu in wiiting anu signeu by the uoctoi is pioceuuial
! Because it is pioceuuial, it uoesn't apply
! So the action was alloweu to pioceeu
K /&: 40525 6= 1 >52D 3C8=5 25C14689=06J <54_559 405=5 O m 38;24= Q8 <13f 19@ S8240 69 405
3012134526714689
\10) ^((;' 3 T"/' 9<1$$1"2 GTPT (]?)
! Eailiei pioposition: the \10) ^((;' case states the cuiient English law
! Back in the 19
'(
centuiy theie was a slightly uiffeient choice of law iule goveining contiacts
! The choice of law iule then (anu it is still tiue in some countiies) was that the piopei law of the contiact is
the 1$A 1"5% 5"'.#*5.28
! But even then it was "unless paities inuicate otheiwise"
! 0vei the uecauescentuiies, the law of the place wheie the contiact was maue has uiminisheu in
impoitance
! The contiacting paities might be anywheie in the woilu
! Also: we have so many uiffeient ways of completing contiacts: fax, phone, e-mail, etc.
! Foi these ieasons, the LLC has seiiously uiminisheu in impoitance which explains the way in which the PC
uisiegaius the LLC
V1++%'$1% M)")2%*%"0 W(&$(&)01(" 3 5%&&):% F&($%&01%' GTET ^))-
! Beals with illegality by the law of the place wheie the contiact is to be peifoimeu
! Illustiates the ielevance of the LLS
! uillespie (a BC company) owns an apaitment builuing in Washington state
! It enteis into a contiact with Teiiace Piopeities to manage the apaitment builuing locateu in Washington
anu also to uo othei stuff in BC
! This contiact is maue in BC
! It is helu to be goveineu by the piopei law of BC
! But it is to be at least paitly peifoimeu in Washington state
! uillespie management is unhappy with the peifoimance, so it teiminates the contiact
! Teiiace biings an action in BC foi bieach of contiact anu it is claiming uamages consisting of the
management fees it has alieauy eaineu
! The pioblem is an illegality pioblem
! The pioblem is that Teiiace Piopeities was not licenseu to uo what it was uoing unuei the contiact in
the state of Washington
! The Washington licensing iequiiement piovision: No suit oi action shall be biought foi the collection
oi compensation of a ieal estate biokei . without alleging anu pioving that the plaintiff was a uuly
licenseu ieal estate biokei
! Teiiace, the plaintiff, has no licence in Washington state (Washington = LLS) anu is claiming in BC foi
management fees eaineu unuei the contiact
K $05 h;5=4689 S82 ^))- 6= 405 25C5>1935 8S 405 V1=069Q489 /4145 C1_ m =08;C@ _5 J1D 19D 144594689
48 64d $05 C1_ 8S 405 ../
! Sutheilanu } iefeis to the uoctiine of illegality as a mattei of foium public policy
! It is not !"#$%&' public policy but uomestic public policy of not enfoicing unlawful baigains oi
iequiiing unlawful conuuct - this is comity
! You uon't want to iequiie a paity to a contiact to bieach the law of some foieign juiisuiction
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
141
! This paiticulai case has piobably taken the English common law a bit faithei than the othei English
cases
K "4 6= 1 J8C63D 1JJ28130 _0630 6= 48 <5 S8;9@ 69 38FF89 C1_ 38;24= _0595>52 J52S82F1935 8S 405
38942134 <251305= 405 C1_= 8S 405 JC135 8S J52S82F1935
K $0525 6= 1 25C;341935 48 59S8235 405 38942134 69 408=5 3623;F=41935=
u MM <"$8'C. .-%'E .-$ 1*, %' ".-$# H2#%8<%5.%"'8 %' 0*'*<* %8 <%!!$#$'. !#"4 .-$8$ 5*8$8 R .-$8$ *#$ 8.*'<*#<
*::1%5*.%"'8 "! .-$ 5"44"' 1*, 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$8
u c-%8 %8 .-$ 7$8. 5*8$ /0 -*8 ." "!!$#
43%"/% F&($%&01%' K0;O 3 ^1&'0 W10- ?%3%+($*%"0 W(&$(&)01(" GTEA ^))-
! Y1128.#*.$8 %11$&*1%.+ 7+ .-$ 1*, "! .-$ !"#24
! 3;$'2$ :#":$#.%$8 5*8$ %8 28$< *8 *' $A*4:1$ "! .-$ 1*, "! .-$ !"#24 ." * 5"'.#*5. ,-%5- %8 &";$#'$< 7+ 8"4$
".-$# :#":$# 1*,
! c-$#$ %8 * 1". "! 4*'<*."#+ *::1%5*.%"' R 1*,8 .-*. 5"2#.8 !$$1 "71%&$< O7$5*28$ "! .-$ ,*+ .-$+ *#$ <#*!.$<P
." *::1+ kMl3k=[MII "! :#":$# 1*, "! .-$ 5"'.#*5.
! This is not a choice of law case
K ^) 38;24= 125 @536@69Q _054052 82 984 405D 125 405 F8=4 1JJ28J26145 S82;F S82 405 134689
M134=
! The case comes up because a BC company (Avenue Piopeities) ueciues to puichase S units in an 0ntaiio
uevelopment
! The piopeity puichaseu is in 0ntaiio, the puichasei is in BC, the venuoi is an Albeita company 3122D69Q
89 <;=695== 69 &941268 19@ ^) (so BC can take juiisuiction)
! The contiact has a choice of law clause anu a juiisuiction clause
! )08635 8S C1_ 3C1;=5 says this contiact is goveineu by the law of 0ntaiio
! H;26=@634689 3C1;=5 says the paities attoin to the juiisuiction of the piovince of 0ntaiio
! Note it is not an $A5128%;$ juiisuiction clause - this is impoitant
! Then AP says we uon't want to complete
! They tell the venuois they aie not completing the puichase because the venuois have not ueliveieu a
piospectus as iequiieu by the BC k$*1 M8.*.$ 35.
! AP, the BC uefenuant, is not completing anu so Fiist city Bevelopments (the Albeita venuoi) staits an
action in 0ntaiio foi bieach of contiact
! S months latei, AP stais an action in BC foi a ueclaiation that the contiact is unenfoiceable
! They want theii ueposits ietuineu
! So we have paiallel actions
! The 0ntaiio plaintiff (the uefenuant in BC) applies in BC foi a stay of the BC action
! That's the issue being uiscusseu in the BCCA (by NcLachlin } as she then was)
! AP's aigument: we aie claiming the benefit of the k$*1 M8.*.$ 35. anu that is a Z;26@631C 1@>1941Q5 S82 ;=
- anu that ought to tip the balance in favoui of BC so BCCA shoulu ieject the application to stay
$05 .1_
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
142
! BC k$*1 M8.*.$ 35. 'O eD stateu (at that time): No piomise oi agieement to puichase a lease, any subuiviueu
lanu oi timeshaie inteiest, is enfoiceable against the puichasei oi tenant by a peison who has bieacheu
any of the piovisions of this pait
K $05 J28>6=689 4014 -? 3C16F= 4014 M62=4 )64D 01= <251305@ 6= 405 25h;625F594 48 6==;5 1 J28=J534;= m
19@ 405 J28=J534;= J28>6=689 6= 5BJ25==CD F1@5 1JJC631<C5 48 =1C5= 8S C19@ 8;4=6@5 8S ^)
! So the aigument is: this statute applies to the S units in 0ntaiio
! They shoulu have issueu a piospectus
! REA s. 62 says you can't sue me
'6=3;==689
! The bases foi application of the law of the foium in this action
K /05 6= 984 @536@69Q 4014 405 C1_ 8S 405 S82;F _6CC 1JJCD <531;=5 406= 6= Z;=4 1 Z;26=@6346891C @536=689
! She is not ueciuing anything on the meiits
! This is a contiact goveineu by the law of 0ntaiio - =8 405 J28J52 C1_ 6= 1 @6SS52594 C1_
! The only connection with BC is that the puichasei is heie anu BC is the foium foi the action
! BCCA uiscusses the ciicumstances in which a couit (the BC couit) can apply the law of its own juiisuiction
69 =;<=464;4689 (& =;JJC5F59414689 S82 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 38942134
! 2 ciicumstances (but she states S ciicumstances):
1. Wheie the local law is pioceuuial
2. Wheie the local law, although substantive iathei than pioceuuial, is of such a natuie that it
shoulu be applieu
S. "The couit has no alteinative wheie the statue expiessly states that ceitain pioceuuies must
apply notwithstanuing that the piopei law of the contiact may inuicate otheiwise. This soit of
piovision is iefeiieu to by the authoiities as a choice of law iule. Wheie the legislation cannot be
chaiacteiizeu as a choice of law iule, the couit may neveitheless apply a piovision of local law in
piefeience to the foieign piopei law of the contiact if it weie satisfieu that it woulu be contiaiy
to public policy to uo otheiwise"
! Re #1: T}: classifieu s. 62 as an issue of pioceuuial vs substantive (CA: uoesn't ueciue that issue)
! Beciues it is substantive law
! @".$( we eii on the siue of classification of foium iules as substantive, not pioceuuial
! So she eliminates option numbei 1
! If s. 62 weie classifieu as pioceuuial, cleaily AP woulu have a legitimate juiiuical auvantage
by litigating in BC
! But it might not be pioceuuial
! So what about the othei options.
! Re #2: NcLachlin } talks about a choice of law iule - what she is iefeiiing to is a ;96C14521C 308635 8S
C1_ 2;C5
! Think \10) ^((;' - the NFL statute iequiieu that eveiy bill of lauing issueu fiom a poit in NFL
contain a paiticulai clause - this is a unilateial choice of law iule because it applies to bills of
lauing in eveiy poit in NFL
! NcLachlin's ieauing of the Real Estate Act is that when it says the piovisions aie applicable to sales of
lanu wheievei, she is inteipieting the statute anu she is saying the k$*1 M8.*.$ 35. is uesigneu to
piotect BC consumeis - so it is like a unilateial choice of law iule
! So the couit has N0 alteinative - it BAS to follow the uictates of the legislatuie of the piovince
! Anothei way of uesciibing the k$*1 M8.*.$ 35. is to classify it as a S82;F C1_ 8S F19@1482D 1JJC6314689
! The common law has not tiauitionally talkeu about laws of manuatoiy application
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
14S
! It is faiily typical foi legislatuies to pass laws that aie uesigneu to piotect .-$%# citizens - they aie
piotective statutes (piotecting consumeis, puichaseis, investois)
! Whethei they incluue a unilateial choice of law iule anu inuicate that the legislatuie wants this
legislation to apply in paiticulai ciicumstances oi whethei they aie uiafteu in geneial teims
! They may oi may not wiite in a unilateial choice of law iule but that uoesn't pievent the couits of the
foium (looking at theii own laws, thinking about the piotective puipose of this statue anu those whom
it is supposeu to piotect) fiom saying this is a law of manuatoiy application which I ought to apply
heie
! But if you B0 have a unilateial choice of law, it uoes make it easiei
u MM(
! To say that the REA shoulu apply in this case as a mattei of public policy is to unueicut the veiy
naiiow uefinition (foi conflicts puiposes) of foium public policy
! It is bettei tieateu as application of a law of manuatoiy application of the foium to a contiact which is
goveineu by anothei law
! It is piefeiable to tieat this case as a case involving the foium ueciuing that a foium law is a law of
manuatoiy application
! EE uoesn't like believing that it shoulu be applieu as a mattei of foium public policy
! So L00K foi unilateial choice of law iules in statutes
! Wheie you litigate, even in a contiacts action, can make a significant uiffeience to what laws the couit enus
up applying
F%)&'(" 3 >(+1;%" OaaO ^))-
! Not ieally a conflicts case but it comes close
! It is ielevant because it ueals with with statutoiy inteipietation
K $06= 6= 405 =5389@ =41Q5 8S 405 \641 M88@= 31=5:
G! `8; @536@5 i62=4 8S 1CC _054052 405 C1_ 1JJC65=
O! "S 405 C1_ 1JJC65=g D8; =46CC 01>5 48 69452J254 64 48 =55 _054052 64 1JJC65= 48 406= 31=5 19@ _014
405 25=;C4K5SS534 _8;C@ <5
! The T} ueciueu to tieat it as a claim in toit anu apply the toit choice of law iule
! CA says that is not the way to uo it
! It is a class action biought in BC
! BC is an opt-in piovince
! A numbei of non-iesiuents hau opteu in
! BC legislation says you have to subuiviue the plaintiffs into classes by iesiuence
! The action is biought unuei the BC Secuiities Act which cieates a statutoiy cause of action against Boliuen
(a mining coipoiation)
! Theie hau been an enviionmental catastiophe in Spain (by a subco) anu the shaie piice hau fallen
! The claim was that Boliuen, the uefenuant, hau maue a misiepiesentation in the piospectuses
! The pioblem in this paiticulai class action wascontinues to be that all these secuiities acts aie slightly
uiffeient
! Eveiy secuiities act in Canaua has a statutoiy cause of action foi misiepiesentation in a piospectus
! But they aie a bit uiffeient, anu limitation peiious might be uiffeient
! Boliuen was applying in this class action to excluue ceitain classes of plaintiffs
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
144
! The question foi the CA was whethei oi not to upholu the T} which saiu this is a cause of action in toit (a
statutoiy toit) - so 1$A 1"5% <$1$5.%, the law of wheie the toit occuiieu, woulu apply
! It hau ieasoneu that the toit might have been founu to have occuiieu in 0ntaiio wheie the heau office
was
! The aigument then was maybe we can locate the statutoiy toit theie
! Then we woulu get 0ntaiio legislation applieu to this class action anu we'll all iecovei something
! The object of the exeicise foi the plaintiffs in this case was to keep eveiyone in the class so they coulu get a
settlement
! Boliuen wants them excluueu
! Aigument of the plaintiff was: you can't ueciue the case on the meiits (what law to apply) until we've
heaiu all the eviuence
! BCCA:
! We uon't think this shoulu be chaiacteiizeu as an action in toit
! We have to ieanalyze the pioblem
K $05 38;24 C88f= 14 405 25C5>194 /53;26465= -34=
! Each piovince has a SA uesigneu to piotect the investois of that piovince
K /08;C@ &941268 C1_ k69 406= 31=5l <5 8J59 19@ 1JJC65@ 48 1CC F5F<52= 8S 405 3C1==d
! We have to analyze it in teims of what is the scope of the 0ntaiio Secuiities Act anu then we have
to analyze the scope of each of the acts
! uiven that they aie consumei piotection legislation, each act is limiteu in its scope of application
to the piospectus issueu in each piovince
! So we aie not in this class action using a toit choice of law iule
! What the CA is uoing is locating the plaintiffs in each juiisuiction (wheie they ieceiveu a
piospectus anu maue theii investment) anu limiting each of these classes of plaintiffs to the
benefits, if any, of theii own secuiities acts cieating a statutoiy toit anu setting any limitation
peiious
! MM( 03 %8 5"##$5. %' %.8 %'.$#:#$.*.%"' "! .-$ 85":$ "! *::1%5*.%"'
! M*5- "! .-$ 8.*.2.$8 %8 51$*#1+ %'.$'<$< ." :#".$5. 5"'824$#8 %' .-$ :#";%'5$8
! c-*.C8 * 5"'8.%.2.%"'*1 :"%'. R +"2 5*'C. 5#$*.$ * 8.*.2."#+ 5*28$ "! *5.%"' %' /0 *'< $A:$5.
".-$# :#";%'5$8 ." *::1+ %.
! /2. %! /0 5-""8$8 ." *::1+ *' 3/ 8.*.2.$ 7+ ;%#.2$ "! * /0 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$> .-*. %8 '". * <%#$5.
*::1%5*.%"'> .-*. %8 /0> .-#"2&- .-$ ?M=YT? "! %.8 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$> <$5%<%'& ." *::1+ *' 3/ 1*,
! c-*. 8-"21< @Wc 7$ * #$V1$5.%"' "' .-$ ;*1%<%.+ "! .-$ 3/ 8.*.2.$ !#"4 .-$ :"%'. "! ;%$, "!
5"'8.%.2.%"'*1 1*,
! /2. .-$ 03 <$5%<$8 ." *;"%< 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$8 R 8" .-*. %8 '". *' %882$
! I" .-$ U2$8.%"' %8( 5"21< .-$ W'.*#%" 8.*.2.$ *::1+ <%#$5.1+ %' /0Q R .-%8 %8 <%#$5. *::1%5*.%"' 8" .-$
%'.$#:#$.*.%"' *::#"*5- %8 5"##$5.
! The iesult of the application is that the AB anu NB plaintiffs get wipeu out because unuei theii own
secuiities acts, they woulun't have hau a cause of action oi the limitation peiiou woulu have iun out
(one of the two)
! This case is a woiking out of the vita Foous inteipietation of the contiact - uoes it apply anu what woulu
be the consequence.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
14S
(9Z;=4 ,92630F594
?1:%- C/+% DQ[E :<(1:% (6 +), &/+% 6(& &%'010/01("
DQ[IYJ the obligation to iestoie the benefit of an eniichment obtaineu at anothei peison's expense is
Q8>5295@ <D 405 J28J52 C1_ 8S 405 8<C6Q14689
DQ[IDJ the piopei law of the obligation is ueteimineu as follows:
(a) If the obligation aiises in connection with a 38942134, the piopei law of 405 C1_ 1JJC631<C5 48
405 38942134
(b) If the obligation aiises in connection with a 4219=134689 389352969Q 19 6FF8>1<C5, its piopei
law is the +%H '10/' R the law of the place wheie the immovable is locateu
(c) If the obligation aiises in 19D 84052 3623;F=41935=, its piopei law is the C1_ 8S 405 38;942D
_0525 405 592630F594 833;2=
W<&1'0($<%& 3 _1**%&*)" Oaaa ^))-
! A claim foi imposition of a constiuctive tiust aiising out of a ielationship
! BCCA says the ielevant choice of law iule is DQ[IDJI:J - the "othei ciicumstances" option is saiu to be the
ielevant choice of law iule
! In this case, theie is no selection of the place wheie the eniichment occuis because the claim is aiising
fiom a ielationship between Chiistophei anu Zimmeiman
! Theii ielationship has been enjoyeu ovei S uiffeient juiisuictions
! The question is: wheie uiu the eniichment which the plaintiff wants iectifieu occui.
! This case comes as a s. 18(a) mattei (which uoesn't exist anymoie) - theie is lack of eviuence in the case
! BCCA says this claim is not coveieu by statute so we have to iesoit to the common law
! We chaiacteiize the issue as unjust eniichment
! We apply the choice of law iule
! Applies the Bicey iule
! But then says we neeu moie eviuence so we'ie senuing it back to tiial because we ieally can't tell on this s.
18(a) application wheie this eniichment occuiieu
K $05 J8694 6= 4014 =05 308=5 8J4689 k3l <;4 40525 6= 984 F;30 @6=3;==689 _0D k84052 4019 <D _1D 8S
5C6F6914689
M1"%&) 42/1+1"% 4&2%"01") 94 3 !M4 GH$+(&)01(" !": OaaA ^)/) 1SSj@ OaaR ^))-
! BCSC ielevant paiagiaphs uealing with unjust eniichment issues: paias 182-2u7
! The issue was uiffeient heie
! Bau to uo with mining claims of Aigentina
K I6969Q 3C16F= 125 6FF8>1<C5=
! Theie was a also a contiact between a couple of coipoiations, one of which was the BC company, INA
! S0 theie is a contiact anu theie is immovable piopeity
K $05 3C16F 6= 4014 40525 01= <559 1 <25130 8S 389i6@59461C 69S82F14689
! 0n the meiits of the unjust eniichment claim, the paities weie aiguing foi uiffeient choice of law iules
K $05 JC16946SS= 69 405 134689 _525 12Q;69Q: 406= 3C16F 126=5= 8;4 8S 1 38942134g =8 8;2 ;9Z;=4
592630F594 3C16F 8;Q04 48 <5 Q8>5295@ <D '635D %;C5 OPakOlk1l
! The piopei law of the obligation is the piopei law of the contiact - law of Coloiauo (common law)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
146
K $05 @5S59@194 k^) 382J8214689l "I- _1= 12Q;69Q: 406= 3C16F 126=5= 126=5= 69 3899534689 _640 19
6FF8>1<C5g =8 405 3C16F 8;Q04 48 <5 Q8>5295@ <D '635D %;C5 OPakOlk<l
! Lex situs - the immovable is locateu in Aigentina
! The hope of the uefenuant was that Aigentina uiun't have unjust eniichment law
! The main complaint of the uefenuants was that the T} got the facts all wiong, misunueistoou them
! But then the fall back on the law was: they aie claiming unjust eniichment (imposition of a
constiuctive tiust)
! So oui best hope is to get the law of Aigentina applieu
K $05 h;5=4689: -25 8J4689= k1lg k<l 19@ k3l 06521230631C 82 69@5J59@594 1C4529146>5=d
! T}: ueclineu to use any of Bicey (a), (b) oi (c)
! Relevant paiagiaph: 2uu of BCSC uecision:
! In my view, a moie piincipleu appioach to a case such as this one, wheie the obligation aiises in
connection with both a pie-existing contiactual ielationship anu a tiansaction involving foieign lanu,
woulu be to examine all the factois that coulu be ielevant to the stiength of the connection between
the obligation anu the competing legal systems. Such factois shoulu be given weight accoiuing to a
ieasonable view of the eviuence anu theii ielative impoitance to the issues at stake. Thus, each of the
factois listeu by Bicey anu Noiiis woulu be consiueieu anu weigheu along with the following non-
exhaustive list of factois to ueteimine which set of laws has the closest anu most substantial
connection to the obligation.
! Wheie the tiansaction unueilying the obligation occuiieu oi was intenueu to occui;
! Wheie the tiansaction unueilying the obligation was oi was intenueu to be caiiieu out;
! Wheie the paities aie iesiuent;
! Wheie the paities caiiy on business;
! What the expectations of the paities weie with iespect to goveining law at the time the obligation
aiose; anu
! Whethei the application of a paiticulai law woulu cause an injustice to eithei of the paities.
! In many cases, peihaps most, it may be that the couit will finu aftei examining all the connecting
factois that the law of the place wheie the eniichment occuiieu is in fact the law with the closest anu
most ieal connection to the obligation. Bowevei, in my view, that is a conclusion that the couit shoulu
ieach only aftei full examination anu analysis.
! The othei aspect of this case: the T} imposes a constiuctive tiust (which is an %' :$#8"'*4 iemeuy)
! They aigueu a constiuctive tiust was an inappiopiiate iemeuy because it woulu have to be enfoiceu
against immovable piopeity in Aigentina
! Suppose the uefenuant uoesn't obey - it has to be iecognizeu anu enfoiceu in Aigentina - Aigentina
isn't going to iecognize anu enfoice any BC oiuei uealing with title
! This is the issue that is at issue in Buke
?28J524D
.(22 3 F&(31":1)+ 5)H W(**1''1("%& GTLG /])-
! Case which tells you 08_ 48 1JJ28130 the classification pioblem - it is the NETB0B
! Succession case
! Tax commissioneis want to impose succession uuty on the estate
! The SK couit has to inteipiet the local statute anu ueciue how that statute is going to apply to the estate of
the ueceaseu
! The SK statute imposes tax (succession uuty) if the piopeity uevolves by oi unuei the law of SK
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
147
! So it uoesn't apply baseu on 1"5*.%"' of piopeity - though that is inuiiectly implicateu
! It applies 16 SK law ueteimines ,-" %8 &"%'& ." %'-$#%.
! So the SK couit has to look at the estate anu look at the <"4%5%1$ "! .-$ <$5$*8$< when she uieu to ueciue
whethei the beneficiaiies have to pay succession uuty
! The ueceaseu in this case uieu uomicileu in SK
! This is the aiea of law in which uomicile comes into its on
! The ueceaseu at the time of hei ueath helu a numbei of moitgages (S7 of them)
! The moitgages weie moitgages of lanu in BC
! Note: the ueceaseu uoesn't ",' the lanu in BC, she holus moitgages on the lanu in BC
! The lanu is in BC
! The foium is SK
K $05 h;5=4689 S82 405 /])- 6= _054052 408=5 F824Q1Q5= 125 Q869Q 48 <D 82 ;9@52 405 C1_ 8S /] 82 ^)
m 4014 @5J59@= 89 08_ F824Q1Q5= 89 C19@ 125 3C1==6i65@ m 125 405D F8>1<C5 82 6FF8>1<C5
J28J524Dd
! As fai as lanu is conceineu - that's easy - it is physically locateu in BC
! What about moitgages. - F824Q1Q5= 125 19 694525=4 69 C19@ k=1D= 405 /] 38;24 1JJCD69Q 64= 8_9
C1_l 19@ @536@5= 4014 694525=4= 69 C19@ 125 C83145@ _0525 405 C19@ 6= C83145@
K #8_ _5 38F5 48 405 2;C5: 405 /"$(/ 8S 405 J28J524D kC8314689 69 C1_l 6= 1 F14452 48 <5
@5452F695@ <D 405 C1_ 8S 405 JC135 _0525 405 J28J524D 6= C83145@
! We (the SKCA) have ueciueu that the moitgages aie locateu in BC because they aie an inteiest in
lanu anu the lanu is locateu in BC
! Now what is iequiieu is expeit eviuence fiom BC piactitioneis as to how BC woulu classify
moitgages - you have to take expeit eviuence fiom the place WBERE TBE PR0PERTY IS L0CATEB
! 0ne BC expeit was moie expeit than the othei one
! 0ne BC expeit saiu we uon't know anything about movables anu immovables in BC, we think
about ieal anu peisonal piopeity - oui succession laws aie baseu on iealpeisonal piopeity
classification
K $05 84052 ^) 5BJ524 =16@g ^) _8;C@ 3C1==6SD F824Q1Q5= 89 C19@ 1= 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D
I"(0%E 0<1' 1' "(0 ,<)0 0<1' :)'% 1' )/0<(&10- 6(&J
! S0: Now SK knows how to classify this piopeity in the estate of the peison who uieu uomicile in SK -
the analysis:
! The ueceaseu owneu moitgages
! Noitgages aie an inteiest in lanu
! Inteiests in lanu aie locateu wheie the lanu is locateu
! The lanu is locateu in BC
! Bow uoes BC classify moitgages.
! BC classifies moitgages as immovable piopeity
! S0 the ueceaseu owneu immovable piopeity in BC
K /8 98_ 405 /] 38;24 01= 48 Q8 48 405 308635 8S C1_ 2;C5= Q8>52969Q =;335==689
! The SK choice of law iule (same as that in BC) is the common law iule
K "4 =1D= =;335==689 48 6FF8>1<C5 J28J524D 6= Q8>5295@ <D 405 C1_ 8S 405 =64;= k405 =64;=
<569Q ^)l
! S0: it is immovable piopeity, it is locateu in BC, so BC law will govein succession to these S7
moitgages
! Because BC law is goveining, those moitgages aie uevolveu by oi unuei the law of BC within the
meaning of the SK Succession anu Buty Act
! Beneficiaiies win, the tax commissionei loses
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
148
! /8 405 S82;F 01= 48 C83145 405 J28J524D m ;=5= S82;F C1_ 48 C83145 405 J28J524D
K -9@ 4059 01>69Q C83145@ 405 J28J524Dg 405 S82;F 389=6@52= 5BJ524 5>6@5935 S28F 0<)0 C5Q1C =D=45F
k405 C8314689 8S 405 J28J524Dl 1= 48 08_ $U-$ C5Q1C =D=45F _8;C@ 301213452675K3C1==6SD 405
J28J524D
K $06= 6= 895 8S 405 89CD =64;14689= 69 _0630 405 S82;F 1335J4= S8256Q9 3C1==6i6314689 1<=8C;45CD
K `8; @5S52 1<=8C;45CD 48 405 C5Q1C =D=45F _0525 405 J28J524D 6= C83145@ 1= 48 08_ 4014 J28J524D
=08;C@ <5 3C1==6i65@
u @".$( .-%8 5*8$ %8 '". :#$5$<$'.X*2.-"#%.+ !"# .-$ :#": .-*. .-$ 5"44"' 1*, 5"'8%<$#8 %'.$#$8.8 %' 1*'< ." 7$
%44";*71$ :#":$#.+
u c-*. %8 &"%'& ." <$:$'< "' -", .-$ 1$&*1 8+8.$4 ,-$#$ .-$ 1*'< %8 1"5*.$< 51*88%V%$8 4"#.&*&$8 *'<
4"#.&*&$8 *#$ "'$ "! .-"8$ !"#48 "! :#":$#.+ ,-%5- *#$ 51*88%V%$< %' <%!!$#$'. ,*+8 7+ <%!!$#$'. 1$&*1
8+8.$48
u Y! .-$ 1*'< ,*8 8"4$,-$#$ ,$#$ .-$ 51*88%V%5*.%"' "! 4"#.&*&$8 %8 4";*71$ :#":$#.+> IJ ,"21< -*;$
*::1%$< .-$ 5-"%5$ "! 1*, #21$ !"# 4";*71$ :#":$#.+> ,-%5- %8 &";$#'$< 7+ .-$ 1*8. <"4%5%1$ "! .-$
.$8.*."#X%'.$8.*.$
K /8 D8; 1335J4 _0145>52 3C1==6i6314689 8S 405 C5Q1C =D=45F _0525 405 J28J524D 6= C83145@ Q6>5= D8;
K #845: 98 C5Q1C =D=45F 69 405 _82C@ 6= Q89Q 48 =1D 4014 C19@ 6= F8>1<C5 J28J524D
K -9 694525=4 69 C19@ m 405 38FF89 C1_ 6= 1C_1D= Q869Q 48 C83145 19D 694525=4 69 C19@ 1= <569Q C83145@
_0525 405 C19@ 6= C83145@
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
149
-??,#'"[ ': "I?&%$-#$ /$-$($&%` ?%&\"/"&#/
)H?$-: )&(%$ H(%"/'")$"&# $%-#/M,% -#' ?%&),,'"#+/ -)$
! It follows the olu Rule 17 mouel - similai to what is consiueieu in the van Bieua case
! C}PTA was enacteu in 2uuS anu pioclaimeu in 2uu6
?%a1"101(" '%:01("E r4522648261C 38FJ545935r means the aspects of a couit's juiisuiction that uepenu on a
connection between
(a) the teiiitoiy oi legal system of the state in which the couit is establisheu, anu
(b) a paity to a pioceeuing in the couit oi the facts on which the pioceeuing is baseu.
u B"2 -*;$ * <$V%'%.%"' "! 60%&&10(&1)+ :(*$%0%":%9 ,-%5- %8 .-$ :-#*8$ ,$ 28$ %' /0 '", %'8.$*< "!
H2#%8<%5.%"' 8%4:1%5%.$# 7$5*28$ %. %8 * :-#*8$ ,-%5- %8 %'.$'<$< ." .*E$ %'." *55"2'. 0*'*<*C8
2'<$#8.*'<%'& "! ?"#&2*#< O?"#&2*#< <"$8 5#$*.$> 21.%4*.$1+> * 5"'8.%.2.%"'*1 !#*4$,"#EP
9%:01(" DIDJE teiiitoiial competence of a couit is to be ueteimineu 8"1$1+ by iefeience to this Pait
u ?*E$8 .-$ 0abc3 .-$ $A5128%;$ 7"<+ "! #21$
u Y. #$:1*5$8 k21$ Kf> .-$ "1< K^eq k21$ "! .-$ 5"2#.
u Y' .-$"#+> .-%8 %8 .-$ "'1+ 8"2#5$ "! .$##%."#%*1 5"4:$.$'5$ #21$8 R '".-%'& ." <" ,%.- 827H$5. 4*..$#> "'1+
.$##%."#%*1 5"4:$.$'5$
W7F54 'O QE F&(:%%;1"2' 1" ) F%&'("
A couit has teiiitoiial competence in a pioceeuing that is biought against a peison only if
(a) that peison is the plaintiff in anothei pioceeuing in the couit to which the pioceeuing in question is
a counteiclaim,
(b) uuiing the couise of the pioceeuing that peison submits to the couit's juiisuiction,
(c) theie is an agieement between the plaintiff anu that peison to the effect that the couit has
juiisuiction in the pioceeuing,
(u) that peison is oiuinaiily iesiuent in Biitish Columbia at the time of the commencement of the
pioceeuing, oi
(e) theie is a ieal anu substantial connection between Biitish Columbia anu the facts on which the
pioceeuing against that peison is baseu.
u c-%8 %8 .-$ -$*#. "! .-$ 8.*.2.$
! I$.8 "2. ` <%!!$#$'. 5%#5248.*'5$8 %' ,-%5- * /0 5"2#. ,%11 -*;$ .$##%."#%*1 5"4:$.$'5$
k1l 4014 J52=89 6= 405 JC16946SS 69 1984052 J28355@69Q 69 405 38;24 48 _0630 405 J28355@69Q 69
h;5=4689 6= 1 38;94523C16Fg
u c-%8 %8 8274%88%"' R %! +"2 7#"2&-. *' *5.%"' %' /0> +"2 *#$ 8274%..%'& ." .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"' "! .-$ /0
5"2#.
k<l @;269Q 405 38;2=5 8S 405 J28355@69Q 4014 J52=89 s405 @5S59@194t =;<F64= 48 405 38;24u=
Z;26=@634689g
u c-$#$ %8 '" V%'%.$ 1%8. "! ,*+8 %' ,-%5- .-$ <$!$'<*'. 5*' 8274%. ." .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"' "! .-$ 5"2#. R +"2
<"'C. '$$< ." %'.$'< ." 8274%.
u Y! *. 8"4$ :"%'. <2#%'& .-$ :#"5$$<%'&> +"2 O.-$ <$!$'<*'.P 8274%.> .-$ /0 5"2#. -*8 .$##%."#%*1
5"4:$.$'5$
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1Su
k3l 40525 6= 19 1Q255F594 <54_559 405 JC16946SS 19@ 4014 J52=89 48 405 5SS534 4014 405 38;24 01=
Z;26=@634689 69 405 J28355@69Qg
u c-%8 %8 * !"#24d8$1$5.%"' 51*28$
u Y! +"2 $'.$# %'." * 5"'.#*5. ,-%5- -*8 * H2#%8<%5.%"' 8$1$5.%'& 51*28$ O%' .-$ $;$'. "! * <%8:2.$ *#%8%'&
"2. "! .-%8 5"'.#*5.> +"2 *&#$$ ." 8274%. ." .-$ H2#%8<%5.%"' "! .-$ /0 5"2#.8P> +"2C;$ 8274%..$< %'
*<;*'5$
k@l 4014 J52=89 6= 82@69126CD 25=6@594 69 ^2646=0 )8C;F<61 14 405 46F5 8S 405 38FF5935F594 8S
405 J28355@69Qg 82
u c-%8 %8 * 4"<%V%$< ;$#8%"' "! .-$ .#*<%.%"'*1 7*8%8 !"# H2#%8<%5.%"' O<%85288$< %' ?*-*#*'%P> ,-%5- %8
:#$8$'5$
u ?$#$ :#$8$'5$ R 8$#;%5$ "! :#"5$88 "' .-$ <$!$'<*'. ,-" %8 %' /0 %8 '" 1"'&$# &""< $'"2&-
u fO<P #$U2%#$8 .-*. .-$ <$!$'<*'. 7$ "#<%'*#%1+ #$8%<$'. %' /0 *. .-$ .%4$ "! .-$ :#"5$$<%'&
u ?$#$ :#$8$'5$ ,%11 '". ,"#E *'+4"#$ R ,$ -*;$ 2::$< .-$ '$5$88*#+ 5"''$5.%"' !#"4 ?*-*#*'%
u k$ 6"#<%'*#+ #$8%<$'.9 R 8$$ 88 e> _> ^ R +"2 &$. 8.*.2."#+ <$V%'%.%"'8 "! "#<%'*#+ #$8%<$'5$ !"#
5"#:"#*.%"'8> :*#.'$#8-%:8 *'< 2'%'5"#:"#*.$< *88"5%*.%"'8> #$8:$5.%;$1+
k5l 40525 6= 1 251C 19@ =;<=419461C 3899534689 <54_559 ^2646=0 )8C;F<61 19@ 405 S134= 89 _0630
405 J28355@69Q 1Q169=4 4014 J52=89 6= <1=5@
u c-%8 *::1%$8 $;$#+ .%4$ +"2 -*;$ * <$!$'<*'. ,-" -*8 ." 7$ 8$#;$< "2.8%<$ "! /0 R :#";%<$8 .-*. /0
-*8 .$##%."#%*1 5"4:$.$'5$ %! .-$#$ %8 * #$*1 *'< 8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"' 7$.,$$' /0 *'< .-$ !*5.8 "'
,-%5- .-$ :#"5$$<%'& %8 7*8$<
u S",$;$#> +"2 <" '". -*;$ ." %';$'. 5*.$&"#%$8 $;$#+ .%4$ +"2 -*;$ ." 7#%'& *' *5.%"' %' /0
u N$ -*;$ *' $A:*'<$< <$V%'%.%"' "! 8F fO$P %' 8F Kg
W7F54 'O eE C%'1;/)+ ;1':&%01("
! 6 A couit that unuei section S lacks teiiitoiial competence in a pioceeuing F1D heai the pioceeuing
uespite that section if it consiueis that
(a) theie is no couit outsiue Biitish Columbia in which the plaintiff can commence the pioceeuing,
oi
(b) the commencement of the pioceeuing in a couit outsiue Biitish Columbia cannot ieasonably be
iequiieu.
u c-%8 %8 .-$ !"#24 "! '$5$88%.+ R ,-%5- [$/$11 <%<'C. ,*'. ." .*1E *7"2.
u N-*. <"$8 .-%8 8$5.%"' 8*+Q R %. 8*+8 .-*. %! .-$#$ %8 '" .$##%."#%*1 5"4:$.$'5$> ,$ 5*' 8.%11 -$*# .-$ *5.%"'
%! O*P "# O7P %8 4$.
u MM :#":"8$8 .-*. .-%8 4*+ '". 7$ 5"'8.%.2.%"'*11+ ;*1%<F c-$ #$*1 *'< 8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"' .$8. <$V%'$8
H2<%5%*1 H2#%8<%5.%"' R %! .-$#$ %8 '" #$*1 *'< 8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"' *'< '"'$ "! .-$ ".-$# 5"'<%.%"'8X
7*8$8 *::1+> -", 5*' +"2 .*E$ H2#%8<%5.%"' 5"'8.%.2.%"'*11+Q ?*+ *::1+ %' * -24*' #%&-.8 5*8$ "#
8"4$.-%'& R %. %8 '". #$*11+ 28$<F
W7F54 'O Y[E C%)+ )"; '/B'0)"01)+ :(""%:01("
! 1u Without limiting the iight of the plaintiff to piove othei ciicumstances that constitute a ieal anu
substantial connection between Biitish Columbia anu the facts on which a pioceeuing is baseu, a ieal
anu substantial connection between Biitish Columbia anu those facts 6= J25=;F5@ to exist if the
pioceeuing
(a) is biought to enfoice, asseit, ueclaie oi ueteimine piopiietaiy oi possessoiy iights oi a secuiity
inteiest in piopeity in Biitish Columbia that is immovable oi movable piopeity,
(b) conceins the auministiation of the estate of a ueceaseu peison in ielation to
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S1
(i) immovable piopeity in Biitish Columbia of the ueceaseu peison, oi
(ii)movable piopeity anywheie of the ueceaseu peison if at the time of ueath he oi she was
oiuinaiily iesiuent in Biitish Columbia,
(c) is biought to inteipiet, iectify, set asiue oi enfoice any ueeu, will, contiact oi othei instiument
in ielation to
k6l J28J524D 69 ^2646=0 )8C;F<61 4014 6= 6FF8>1<C5 82 F8>1<C5 J28J524Dg 82
(ii)movable piopeity anywheie of a ueceaseu peison who at the time of ueath was
oiuinaiily iesiuent in Biitish Columbia,
(u) is biought against a tiustee in ielation to the caiiying out of a tiust in any of the following
ciicumstances:
(i) the tiust assets incluue piopeity in Biitish Columbia that is immovable oi movable
piopeity anu the ielief claimeu is only as to that piopeity;
(ii) that tiustee is oiuinaiily iesiuent in Biitish Columbia;
(iii)the auministiation of the tiust is piincipally caiiieu on in Biitish Columbia;
(iv)by the expiess teims of a tiust uocument, the tiust is goveineu by the law of Biitish
Columbia,
(e) conceins contiactual obligations, anu
(i) the contiactual obligations, to a substantial extent, weie to be peifoimeu in Biitish
Columbia,
(ii) by its expiess teims, the contiact is goveineu by the law of Biitish Columbia, oi
(iii)the contiact
(A) is foi the puichase of piopeity, seivices oi both, foi use othei than in the
couise of the puichasei's tiaue oi piofession, anu
(B) iesulteu fiom a solicitation of business in Biitish Columbia by oi on behalf of
the sellei,
(f) conceins iestitutionaiy obligations that, to a substantial extent, aiose in Biitish Columbia,
(g) conceins a toit committeu in Biitish Columbia,
(h) conceins a business caiiieu on in Biitish Columbia,
(i) is a claim foi an injunction oiueiing a paity to uo oi iefiain fiom uoing anything
(i) in Biitish Columbia, oi
(ii) in ielation to piopeity in Biitish Columbia that is immovable oi movable piopeity,
(j) is foi a ueteimination of the peisonal status oi capacity of a peison who is oiuinaiily iesiuent in
Biitish Columbia,
(k) is foi enfoicement of a juugment of a couit maue in oi outsiue Biitish Columbia oi an aibitial
awaiu maue in oi outsiue Biitish Columbia, oi
(l) is foi the iecoveiy of taxes oi othei inuebteuness anu is biought by the goveinment of Biitish
Columbia oi by a local authoiity in Biitish Columbia.
! This section fleshes out s. S(e)
u Y. %8 51$*#1+ *'< $A:#$881+ 8.*.$< %' h*' /#$<* .-*. .-%8 8$5.%"' %8 '". $A-*28.%;$
u c-$ 8$5.%"' %.8$1! 8*+8( 6N%.-"2. 1%4%.%'& .-$ #%&-. "! .-$ :1*%'.%!! ." :#";$ ".-$# 5%#5248.*'5$8 w * #$*1
*'< 8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"' %8 :#$824$< ." $A%8. %! w9
u ?"8. "! .-$ 5*.$&"#%$8 *#$ 5"'.%'2%'& .-$ #$:#"<25.%"' "! .-$ "1< k21$ KfOKP #21$8 *'< .-$ 5*.$&"#%$8 +"2
V%'< %' k21$ KeFgL %' W'.*#%"
u 0*.$&"#%$8(
u 35.%"'8 5"'5$#'%'& :#":$#.+ %' .-$ :#";%'5$
u I255$88%"'
u M'!"#5$4$'. "! 5"'.#*5.8
u KgO<P %8 * '$, "'$ R <$*18 ,%.- .#28. *5.%"'8 O<%<'C. -*;$ *' $U2%;*1$'. %' k21$ KfOKP
u KgO$P 5*28$8 "! *5.%"' %' 5"'.#*5.8 R 8"4$ 5-"%5$8 R %.C8 '". H28. 5"'.#*5.8 4*<$ %' /0
u KgO!P #$8.%.2.%"'*#+ "71%&*.%"'8
u KgO&P .-$ .#*<%.%"'*1> ."#. ,*8 5"44%..$< %' /0
u KgO%P %'H2'5.%"'8
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S2
u /2. .-%8 %8 '". $A-*28.%;$ R 8" %! +"2 5*'C. V%'< * 5%#5248.*'5$8 %' 8F Kg .-*. V%.8> +"2 5*' &" 7*5E ." 8F f
*'< *#&2$ .-*. .-$#$ 1' * #$*1 *'< 8278.*'.%*1 5"''$5.%"'> *'< +"2 -*;$ ." 4*E$ %. "2.
W7F54 'O YYE ?1':&%01(" )' 0( 0<% %H%&:1'% (6 0%&&10(&1)+ :(*$%0%":%
11 (1) Aftei consiueiing the inteiests of the paities to a pioceeuing anu the enus of justice, a couit may
uecline to exeicise its teiiitoiial competence in the pioceeuing on the giounu that a couit of anothei state is a
F825 appiopiiate foium in which to heai the pioceeuing.
u 8F KKOKP %8 7*8%5*11+ .-$ I5"..%8- :#%'5%:1$
(2) A couit, in ueciuing the question of whethei it oi a couit outsiue Biitish Columbia is the moie appiopiiate
foium in which to heai a pioceeuing, must consiuei the ciicumstances ielevant to the pioceeuing, incluuing
(a) the compaiative convenience anu expense foi the paities to the pioceeuing anu foi theii witnesses, in
litigating in the couit oi in any alteinative foium,
(b) the law to be applieu to issues in the pioceeuing,
(c) the uesiiability of avoiuing multiplicity of legal pioceeuings,
(u) the uesiiability of avoiuing conflicting uecisions in uiffeient couits,
(e) the enfoicement of an eventual juugment, anu
(f) the faii anu efficient woiking of the Canauian legal system as a whole.
u 8F KKOLP %8 .-$ ":$#*.%'& 8$5.%"'
o 9( >W :(/&0' I)"; )"- :(/&0 '/BA%:0 0( 0<% W7F54J <)' 0( :("'1;%& )++ 0<('% 6):0(&' p 0<%- .4\G 0(
:("'1;%& 0<%*
o 4"; 0<1' 1' 1":+/'13% p "(0 %H<)/'013% p 16 0<%&% )&% (0<%& :1&:/*'0)":%' &%+%3)"08 :(/"'%+ :)" &)1'%
0<%*
u Y! .-$ 1*, ." 7$ *::1%$< %8 .-$ 1*, "! /0> .-*. * !*5."# %' !*;"2# "! :#"5$$<%'& .-$ *5.%"' %' /0
u 9%:01(" YYE b#$8$#;$8 .-$ <%85#$.%"'*#+ 5"4:"'$'. "! .-$ 5"2#.
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1SS
,#M&%),I,#$ &M )-#-'"-# H('+I,#$/ -#' ',)%,,/ -)$
! The most impoitant piovisions to be awaie of in teims of substantive iules in the EC}BA:
GW7?4 'O YE ?%a1"101(" (6 ) qW)");1)" A/;2*%"0r
"Canauian juugment" means a juugment, ueciee oi oiuei maue in a civil pioceeuing by a couit of a piovince
oi teiiitoiy of Canaua othei than Biitish Columbia
(a) that iequiies a peison to pay money, incluuing
(i) an oiuei foi the payment of money that is maue in the exeicise of a juuicial function by a tiibunal of
a piovince oi teiiitoiy of Canaua othei than Biitish Columbia anu that is enfoiceable as a juugment
of the supeiioi couit of unlimiteu tiial juiisuiction in that piovince oi teiiitoiy, anu
(ii)an oiuei maue anu enteieu unuei section 741 of the Ciiminal Coue in a couit of a piovince oi
teiiitoiy of Canaua othei than Biitish Columbia,
(b) unuei which a peison is iequiieu to uo oi not uo an act oi thing, oi
(c) that ueclaies iights, obligations oi status in ielation to a peison oi thing,
anu, subject to section 1.1, incluues a uomestic tiaue agieement awaiu, but uoes not incluue a juugment,
ueciee oi oiuei that
(u) is foi maintenance oi suppoit, incluuing an oiuei enfoiceable unuei the Family Naintenance
Enfoicement Act,
(e) is foi the payment of money as a penalty oi fine foi committing an offence,
(f) ielates to the caie, contiol oi welfaie of a minoi,
(g) is maue by a tiibunal of a piovince oi teiiitoiy of Canaua othei than Biitish Columbia, whethei oi not it
is enfoiceable as an oiuei of the supeiioi couit of unlimiteu tiial juiisuiction of the piovince oi
teiiitoiy wheie the oiuei was maue, to the extent that it pioviues foi ielief othei than the payment of
money, oi
(h) ielates to the gianting of piobate oi letteis of auministiation oi the auministiation of the estate of a
ueceaseu peison;
! Y. %8 U2%.$ * 7#"*< <$V%'%.%"'
! Y'512<$8 :$52'%*#+ H2<&4$'.8
! 318" %'512<$8 $U2%.*71$ "#<$#8
! 8F KO5P %8 *' %'.$#$8.%'& :#";%8%"' ,-%5- 4%&-. *2.-"#%G$ #$&%8.#*.%"' "! H2<&4$'.8 <$*1%'& ,%.- .%.1$ ."
4";$*71$8
! I-"21< *18" '".%5$( .-$ #$8. "! .-$ <$V%'%.%"' "! 0*'*<%*' H2<&4$'.> ,-%5- $A512<$8 5$#.*%' E%'<8 "!
H2<&4$'.8
9%:01(" e giving BC couits uiscietion to make vaiious oiueis
(5"'.C<)
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1S4
GW7?4 'O eIQJE >+1"; 6/++ 6)10< )"; :&%;10
(S) Notwithstanuing subsection (2), the Supieme Couit must not make an oiuei staying oi limiting the
enfoicement of a iegisteieu Canauian juugment solely on the giounus that
(a) the juuge, couit oi tiibunal that maue the juugment lackeu juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei of the
pioceeuing that leu to the juugment, oi ovei the paity against whom enfoicement is sought, unuei
(i) piinciples of piivate inteinational law, oi
(ii)the uomestic law of the piovince oi teiiitoiy wheie the juugment was maue,
(b) the Supieme Couit woulu have come to a uiffeient uecision on a finuing of fact oi law oi on an exeicise
of uiscietion fiom the uecision of the juuge, couit oi tiibunal that maue the juugment, oi
(c) a uefect existeu in the piocess oi pioceeuing leauing to the juugment.
u 'O eIQJ> :#"-%7%.%'& /0 5"2#.8 !#"4 8.*+%'& "# 1%4%.%'& .-$ $'!"#5$4$'. "! * 0*'*<%*' H2<&4$'. 8"1$1+ "'
.-$ &#"2'<8 .-*. .-$ H2<&$ .-*. 4*<$ .-$ H2<&4$'. 1*5E$< H2#%8<%5.%"' $%.-$# 2'<$# .-$ :#%'5%:1$8 "!
:#%;*.$ %'.$#'*.%"'*1 1*, "# .-$ <"4$8.%5 1*, "! .-$ :#";%'5$ R 0<1' 1' 0<% :&101:)+ $&(31'1(" p B+1"; 6/++
6)10< )"; :&%;10
u B"2 5*'C. $;$' $A*4%'$ .-$ 5"4:$.$'5$ "! .-$ ".-$# 0*'*<%*' 5"2#. R +"2 -*;$ ." .#28. .-$4
u 'O eIQJIBJ( Y. %8 %4:$#4%88%71$> *8 %. %8 *. 5"44"' 1*,> ." 5"'8%<$# ,-$.-$# ,$ ,"21< -*;$ 5"4$ ." *
<%!!$#$'. V%'<%'& "! !*5. "# 1*,
u M##"# "! 1*, %8 '". * <$!$'5$
! 'O eIQJI:J R <$!$5. $A%8.$< %' .-$ :#"5$88 "# :#"5$$<%'& 1$*<%'& ." .-$ H2<&4$'.
! c-%8 %8 ." 7$ %'.$#:#$.$< *8 $A512<%'& <$!$'5$8 "! 7#$*5- "! '*.2#*1 H28.%5$ *'< !#*2< "' .-$ !"#$%&'
5"2#.
! Mm0Mbc( 'O eIDJI:JI13J - uefence of contiaiy to public policy can still be useu
'() '+,)-. /'0 &%! 12-3,.45 26 /)7+
1SS