Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T11:30:03.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2011 / Jurisprudence canadienne en matière de droit international privé en 2011

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Joost Blom
Joost Blom*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases / Jurisprudence
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 49 , 2012 , pp. 559 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 2012

Access options

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

References

1 Wolfe v Pickar, 2011 ONCA 347, 332 DLR (4th) 157 (sub nom. Wolfe v Wyeth).

2 Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28 [CJPTA (BC)].

3 Laxton v Jurem Anstalt, 2011 BCCA 212, 334 DLR (4th) 76 at para. 42.

4 Muscutt v Courcelles (2002), 213 DLR (4th) 577 (Ont CA) [Muscutt]. The factors were revised in Van Breda v Village Resorts Ltd., 2010 ONCA 84, 316 DLR (4th) 201, noted at (2010) 48 CYIL 529 and since aff’d, Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17.

5 Van Breda v Village Resorts Ltd., 2010 ONCA 84, 316 DLR (4th) 201 [Van Breda], noted at (2010) 48 CYIL 529, aff’d, Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17.

6 Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, r. 17.02. Two of the grounds for service ex juris, those relating to damage suffered in Ontario (subrule (h)) and a necessary or proper party to a proceeding against a person in Ontario (subrule (o)), were held not to give rise to such a presumption.

7 Van Breda, supra note 5.

8 CJPTA (BC), supra note 2.

9 Van Breda, supra note 5.

10 Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario), supra note 6.

11 See Van Breda, supra note 5 and accompanying text.

12 See Muscutt, supra note 4 and accompanying text.

13 Van Breda, supra note 5.

14 Dembroski v Rhainds, 2011 BCCA 185, 333 DLR (4th) 437.

15 CJPTA (BC), supra note 2 at s 3(e) (real and substantial connection with the province).

16 Jennings v Haas, 2011 ONSC 2872, 335 DLR (4th) 225.

17 Moore v Vancouver Port Authority, 2011 ONSC 3692.

18 Wielgomas v Anglocom Inc., 2010 ONSC 6289, aff’d 2011 ONCA 490, 335 DLR (4th) 741.

19 Export Packers Co. Ltd. v SPI International Transportation, 2011 ONSC 5907.

20 Wolfe v Pickar, 2011 ONCA 347, 332 DLR (4th) 157 (sub nom. Wolfe v Wyeth).

21 Cheng v Yu, 2011 BCCA 62.

22 Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SS 1997, c C-41.1 [CJPTA (Sask.)].

23 Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, SBC 2004, c 1.

24 Commercial Arbitration Act, RSBC 1996, c 55, s. 22, makes applicable the Domestic Arbitration Rules of the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC), s 20(1), which provides that the “arbitration tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction.”

25 Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, c 50.

26 Commercial Arbitration Act, supra note 24 at s 15(2). The effectiveness of arbitration agreements to pre-empt judicial jurisdiction in consumer cases, absent legislation to the contrary, was upheld in Dell Computer Corp. v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801.

27 The judges cited, inter alia, s 29(1)(k) of the BCICAC Domestic Arbitration Rules, supra note 24, which expressly gives arbitrators the power to grant any equitable remedies.

28 Arbitration Act, 1992, SS 1992, c A-24.1, s 7.

29 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3.

30 Abdula v Canadian Solar Inc., 2011 ONSC 5105, aff’d 2012 ONCA 211.

31 Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S.5, s 138.3(1).

32 Ibid at s 138.1.

33 Torudag v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2011 BCCA 458.

34 Ironrod Investments Inc. v Enquest Energy Services Corp., 2011 ONSC 308.

35 Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-9, s 1(m), defining the “court” as the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.

36 Foote v Foote Estate, 2011 ABCA 1, 328 DLR (4th) 695, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 8 July 2011.

37 Sahibalzubaidi v Bahjat, 2011 ONSC 4075, 339 DLR (4th) 166.

38 Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3.

39 Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 13.

40 Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, s. 22(2)(b).

41 Riley v Wildhaber, 2011 ONSC 3456, 336 DLR (4th) 604.

42 Kaur v Guraya, 2011 ONSC 2853, 4 RFL (7th) 346.

43 Children’s Law Reform Act, supra note 40 at s 42.

44 Loi des assurances de l’Ontario, LRO 1990, chap I–8, article 292.

45 Fastwing Investment Holdings Ltd. c Bombardier inc., 2011 QCCA 432.

46 La Cour cite (au para 29) St Microelectronics inc c Matrox Graphics inc, 2007 QCCA 1784, [2008] RJQ 73, au para. 84.

47 Treat America Ltd v Nestlé Canada Inc, 2011 ONCA 560, 340 DLR (4th) 707.

48 Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v Glazer, 2011 ABQB 559.

49 Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, RSA 2000, c R-6, s 2(6)(b), which provides that a judgment must not be registered if the judgment debtor was neither carrying on business nor ordinarily resident in the originating state and “did not voluntarily appear or otherwise submit during the proceedings.”

50 Bank of Mongolia v Taskin, 2011 ONSC 6083, 285 OAC 263 (Div’l Ct.).

51 Canadian Judgments Act, RSNB 2011, c 123.

52 Mowery v 2063010 Ontario Inc, 2011 NBCA 32, 335 DLR (4th) 493.

53 Contacare Inc v CIBA Vision Corp, 2011 ONSC 4276.

54 The British Columbia version is the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, SBC 2002, c 29.

55 Arcinas v Stanley, 2011 BCSC 1094.

56 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, implemented by the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, 1996, SS 1996, c E-9.12.

57 Insurance Act, RSBC 1996, c 226, s 134(9)(b)(iii), since repealed and replaced by the Financial Institutions Act, RSBC 1996, c 141, s 92.1, the relevant wording of which is identical.

58 Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation, BC Reg 447/83, Part 7. The limitation provision is s 130.

59 Limitation Act, RSBC 1996, c 266, s 4.1(d), which deals with adding parties to an action already brought. The plaintiff had sued the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia within two years.

60 Which of the two entities was the actual supplier was unclear on the materials before the court.

61 The trial decision is noted at (2010) 48 CYIL 568.

62 The main statutory recognition rule in s 22(1) of the Divorce Act, RSBC 1985 (2nd Supp), c 3, is based on one year’s ordinary residence of either party in the country granting the divorce. It did not apply because both parties continued to live in Canada. Common law recognition rules are, however, preserved by s 22(3) of the act.

63 Convention sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d’adoption internationale, 29 mai 1993, 1870 RTNU 167 (entrée en vigueur: le 1er mai 1995).

64 Adoption – III7, 2011 QCCA 1129, [2011] RJQ 1239.