¹ Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 SCR 572 [Van Breda].

² Ibid.

³ Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28 [CJPTA (BC)]; Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SS 1997, c C-41.1 [CJPTA (SK)]; Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SNS 2003 (2d Sess), c 2 [CJPTA (NS)]. The acts differ slightly.

⁴ Eg, CJPTA (BC), supra note 3, s 10(e)(ii).

⁵ Eg, Ontario, Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 17.02(o).

⁶ Van Breda, supra note 1 at para 55.

⁷ Ibid at para 99.

⁸ Relying on Cesario v Gondek, 2012 ONSC 4563, 113 OR (3d) 466.

⁹ Toews v First Choice Canada Inc, 2014 ABQB 784 (Master).

¹⁰ Van Breda, supra note 1.

¹¹ Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Association of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 SCR 427.

¹² Pedwell v SNC-Lavalin Inc, 2014 ABQB 309 (Master).

¹³ 1400467 Alberta Ltd v Adderley, 2014 ABQB 84 (jurisdiction simpliciter), 2014 ABQB 339 (forum non conveniens).

¹⁴ Harrowand SL v DeWind Turbines Ltd, 2014 ONSC 2014 (Master).

¹⁵ O’Brien v Lake Country Log Homes 2009 Ltd, 2014 SKQB 24.

¹⁶ Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, s 11.25(1) and (3)(b). The former says that service ex juris requires that a real and substantial connection exist between the province and the facts on which the claim is based. The latter provides that a real and substantial connection is presumed to exist if “the claim relates to a contract or alleged contract made, performed or breached in Alberta.”

¹⁷ For the purpose of the CJPTA (BC), supra note 3, s 3(e).

¹⁸ Alpha Resource Management Inc v Brown, 2014 BCSC 1339.

¹⁹ Sky Harvest Energy Corp v Ireland, 2014 BCSC 472.

²⁰ Under the CJPTA (BC), supra note 3, s 11.

²¹ Nielsen v Nielsen, 2014 MBQB 110.

²² Solloway v Klondex Mines Ltd, 2014 ONSC 391, aff’d 2014 ONCA 672.

²³ Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 35906 (4 September 2014).

²⁴ Van Breda v Village Resorts Ltd, 2010 ONCA 84, 98 OR (3d) 721, aff’d Van Breda, supra note 1.

²⁵ Microcoal Inc v Livneh, 2014 BCSC 787.

²⁶ Manson v Canetic Resources Ltd, 2014 ONSC 261.

²⁷ The court distinguished Cesario v Gondek, supra note 8, on the basis that the real and substantial connection found in that case was the joint liability, for the same damage, of an out-of-province defendant with the in-province defendant.

²⁸ Van Breda, supra note 1.

²⁹ E.g. Oakley v Barry (1998), 158 DLR (4th) 679 (NSCA).

³⁰ Central Sun Mining Inc v Vector Engineering Inc, 2013 ONCA 601, 117 OR (3d) 313, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 35640 (13 March 2014).

³¹ The “strong cause” test was last reaffirmed in ZI Pompey Industrie v ECU-Line NV, 2013 SCC 27, [2003] 1 SCR 450.

³² Comtois International Export Inc v Livestock Express BV, 2014 FC 475.

³³ Commercial Arbitration Act, RSC 1985, c 17 (2nd Supp), sched 1, art 8.

³⁴ CJPTA (BC), supra note 3, s 3(d).

³⁵ A presumed real and substantial connection under CJPTA (BC), supra note 3, s 10(e)(i).

³⁶ Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, RSO 1990, c R.5, which is confined to money judgments. The enforceability of an eventual judgment is a factor in forum non conveniens analysis under CJPTA (BC), supra note 3, s 11(2)(e).

³⁷ Moneris Solutions Corp v Groupe Germain Inc, 2014 ONSC 6102.

³⁸ Leave to appeal to SCC granted, 36087 (16 April 2015).

³⁹ Van Breda, supra note 1.

⁴⁰ Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S.5, s 138.1.

⁴¹ Whose decision is noted (2013) 51 Can YB Intl L 590.

⁴² Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, s 11.25(1) and (3)(b). See note 16 in this digest.

⁴³ In a subsequent proceeding, Turner v Bell Mobility Inc, 2015 ABQB 169, the Alberta court granted an interim stay to give individual plaintiffs an opportunity to opt into a parallel Saskatchewan class action and thus not be part of the class in the Alberta action. Jurisdiction issues in the Saskatchewan action were decided in Microcell Communications Inc v Frey, 2011 SKCA 136, 377 Sask R 156, noted (2011) 49 Can YB Intl L 569.

⁴⁴ Based on the wife’s ordinary residence in British Columbia for a year preceding commencement of the proceeding (for divorce) and at the commencement of the proceeding (for corollary relief in respect of support and custody): Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), ss 3 (divorce) and 4(1) (support and custody).

⁴⁵ So far as these claims were not corollary to the divorce but made independently, they rested on the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, Part 7. It has no specific jurisdictional test for support claims, which means that territorial competence is determined under the CJPTA (BC), supra note 3. That act, if the defendant is a non-resident and does not attorn to the jurisdiction, requires a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the facts on which the proceeding is based (s 3(e)).

⁴⁶ The Family Law Act, supra note 45, gives jurisdiction to make an order respecting guardianship or parenting arrangements if the child is habitually resident in the province when the application is filed (s 74(2)(a)).

⁴⁷ Under the Family Law Act, supra note 45, jurisdiction over property division depends on either spouse being habitually resident in the province when the action commences (s 106(2)(c)).

⁴⁸ Lamothe v Lamothe, 2014 NSSC 137.

⁴⁹ For the purpose of the CJPTA (NS), supra note 3. The wife could, if she wished, seek a provisional support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, SNS 2002, c 9, but the claims as presented had to be brought in Ontario.

⁵⁰ Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 35828 (14 April 2014).

⁵¹ Cork v Cork, 2014 ONSC 3488.

⁵² Mendez v Demos, 2014 BCSC 2047.

⁵³ Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36193 (12 March 2015).

⁵⁴ Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C-12, s 22(2) says that a child is habitually resident in the place where he or she resided with both parents; or, if the parents are separated, with one parent under a separation agreement or with the other parent’s consent; or with a person other than a parent on a permanent basis, whichever last occurred. None of these conditions was met in this case.

⁵⁵ These are the principal conditions under ibid, s 22(1)(b).

⁵⁶ The conditions for recognizing an extra-provincial custody order are in ibid, s 41(1).

⁵⁷ Navarro v Parrish, 2014 ONCA 856, 52 RFL (7th) 76.

⁵⁸ Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, SO 2002, c 13.

⁵⁹ Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3, Part III.

⁶⁰ Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36020 (11 December 2014).

⁶¹ Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, 25 October 1980 (entered into force 1 December 1983) [Hague Convention].

⁶² Nowacki v Nowacki, 2014 ONSC 2052.

⁶³ The Canadian divorce was ultimately not set aside: Nowacki v Nowacki, 2015 ONSC 973.

⁶⁴ Code civil du Québec, LQ 1991, ch 64 [CcQ].

⁶⁵ Art 3135 CcQ: “[U]ne autorité du Québec peut, exceptionnellement et à la demande d’une partie, décliner cette compétence.”

⁶⁶ Art 3136 CcQ: “Bien qu’une autorité québécoise ne soit pas compétente pour connaître d’un litige, elle peut, néanmoins, si une action à l’étranger se révèle impossible ou si on ne peut exiger qu’elle y soit introduite, entendre le litige si celui-ci présente un lien suffisant avec le Québec.”

⁶⁷ MNC Multinational Consultants inc c Natraceutical Group, 2014 QCCS 5400.

⁶⁸ Ferme Jolicap inc c Select Genetics of Indiana llc, 2014 QCCS 5552.

⁶⁹ Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36011 (4 December 2014).

⁷⁰ Judgment Interest Act, RSA 2000, c J-1.

⁷¹ PT ATPK Resources TBK (Indonesia) v Diversified Energy and Resource Corp, 2014 ONCA 466.

⁷² Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, s 129(3).

⁷³ Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec v SK Export Inc, 2014 NBQB 243, aff’d 2015 NBCA 30.

⁷⁴ PT ATPK Resources, supra note 71.

⁷⁵ Chatham-Kent Children’s Services v H (A), 2014 ONSC 2352, 46 RFL (7th) 111.

⁷⁶ Norwood Sales Inc v Empire Welding & Machining Ltd, 2014 SKQB 255.

⁷⁷ The decision was made under the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, SS 2005, c E-9.121. Section 10 provides that a foreign judgment shall not be enforced if “(a) there was not a real and substantial connection between the state of origin and the facts on which the civil proceeding was based; and (b) it was clearly inappropriate for the court in the state of origin to take jurisdiction.” The court refused to read those requirements as making a judgment enforceable, even in the absence of a real and substantial connection, unless the debtor shows it was clearly inappropriate to the foreign court to take jurisdiction. In the case of a default judgment, which this was, the court thought it made no sense of the originating court “taking jurisdiction,” since entering the judgment is no more than a function performed by court staff.

⁷⁸ Kavoussi v Moos, 2014 ONSC 2612, aff’d 2015 ONCA 195.

⁷⁹ Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, SBC 2003, c 29.

⁸⁰ Owen v Rocketinfo Inc, 2008 BCCA 502.

⁸¹ Court Order Enforcement Act, RSBC 1996, c 78, Part 2. This is based on a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act that has been in force in many provinces for many years. In some provinces, including British Columbia, the act allows jurisdictions outside Canada to be designated as reciprocating states.

⁸² Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077.

⁸³ Skye Properties Ltd v Wu, 2014 NSSC 382.

⁸⁴ Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, SNS 2001, c 30, s 8(2)(a).

⁸⁵ The court cited Apollo Real Estate Ltd v Streambank Funding Inc, 2012 BCSC 1088.

⁸⁶ Justice for the Victims of Terrorism Act, SC 2012, c 1, s 4(5). That section requires that a judgment in favour of a person that has suffered loss or damage from terrorism, as defined, from a foreign court must be recognized in Canada if it meets the criteria under Canadian law for being recognized and, if the judgment is against a foreign state, if the state is on the list referred to in the State Immunity Act, RSC 1985, c S-18, s 6.1(2). The latter provision allows the federal government to designate states in respect of which it is “satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign state supported or supports terrorism.” Iran has been so designated.

⁸⁷ Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, RSO 1990, c R.5.

⁸⁸ The State Immunity Act, supra note 86, s 12(1)(b) excludes from the general immunity from attachment and execution, any property of a foreign state that is used or intended to be used in a commercial activity or, if the foreign state is on the list referred to in s 6.1(2), is used or intended to be used by it to support terrorism or engage in terrorist activity.

⁸⁹ State Immunity Act, supra note 86, s 12(1)(d), which applies specifically to property belonging to a state that is on the list referred to in s 6.1(2).

⁹⁰ CJPTA (BC), supra note 3, s 10(k).

⁹¹ Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, online: <http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/XXII_1_e.pdf>, implemented by the Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, RSBC 1996, c 154.

⁹² Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc, 2006 SCC 52, [2006] 2 SCR 612.

⁹³ Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 35935 (23 October 2014).

⁹⁴ Prince v ACE Aviation Holdings Inc, 2014 ONCA 285, 373 DLR (4th) 109 at para 54.

⁹⁵ Automobile Accident Insurance Act, RSS 1978, c A-35, s 40.2(1).

⁹⁶ An earlier phase of the siblings’ dispute about Rupert’s property was Henry Estate v Henry, 2012 MBCA 4, noted (2012) 50 Can YB Intl L 588.

⁹⁷ Family Maintenance Act, CCSM, c F20.

⁹⁸ Ibid, ss 20(6)-(7), 23.

⁹⁹ The Wills Act, RSBC 1996, c 489, in force when the testator died. That act was replaced by the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, SBC 2009, c 13 as of 31 March 2014. The date of death is the critical date by virtue of s 185 of the new act.

¹⁰⁰ Wills Act, supra note 99, s 14(1)(d).

¹⁰¹ Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s 22(1)-(2).

¹⁰² Ibid, s 22(3).

¹⁰³ Essa v Mekawi, 2014 ONSC 7409.

¹⁰⁴ Zeng v Fu, 2014 ONSC 3268.

¹⁰⁵ Loi sur l’optométrie, RLRQ, c O-7.

¹⁰⁶ Code des professions, RLRQ, c C-26.