¹ This issue is explained briefly in the decision as it relates to the protection of freedom of speech and the press under the United States Constitution, First Amendment, 1791 as well as the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act, 28 USC (2010) and Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 USC (1996).

² Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28, s 3(c) [CJPTA (BC)].

³ 2018 SCC 28, [2018] 2 SCR 3.

⁴ CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 11.

⁵ This possibility is discussed in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 SCR 572 at para 80 [Van Breda], following the identification of relevant connecting factors.

⁶ CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 11(2).

⁷ Ibid, ss 3, 10.

⁸ Relying on the connecting factors set out in Van Breda, supra note 5.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 SCR 427 [SOCAN].

¹¹ 2012 ONSC 4563, 113 OR (3d) 466.

¹² The court relied on Solloway v Klondex Mines Ltd, 2014 ONSC 391 at para 42.

¹³ The court relied on interpretation of Van Breda, supra note 5, in Vahle v Global Work & Travel Co Inc, 2020 ONCA 224.

¹⁴ Ontario v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ONCA 353, 115 OR (3d) 561.

¹⁵ Based on Central Sun Mining Inc v Vector Engineering Inc, 2013 ONCA 601, 117 OR (3d) 313.

¹⁶ Misyura v Walton, 2012 ONSC 5397, 112 OR (3d) 462.

¹⁷ Van Breda, supra note 5.

¹⁸ As reiterated by relevant jurisprudence. See e.g. Cook v 1293037 Alberta Ltd, 2015 ONSC 7989; Mitchell v Jeckovich, 2013 ONSC 7494.

¹⁹ Relying on Van Breda, supra note 5.

²⁰ Considering factors discussed in, e.g, Muscutt v Courcelles, [2002] 60 OR (3d) 20; Alexander v Alexander, 2017 BCSC 914.

²¹ CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 10.

²² Ibid, s 11.

²³ Applying principles from Douez v Facebook Inc, 2017 SCC 33, [2017] 1 SCR 751 [Douez].

²⁴ Comparing the situation to that of Douez, ibid.

²⁵ Based in part on reasoning similar to Uber Technologies Inc v Heller, 2020 SCC 16.

²⁶ See e.g. Ontario Medical Association v Willis Canada Inc, 2013 ONCA 745.

²⁷ As addressed in the arbitration context in, for example, Telus Communications Inc v Wellman, [2019] 2 SCR 144.

²⁸ Kore Meals LLC v Freshii Inc, 2021 ONSC 2896 at para 32, 156 OR (3d) 311.

²⁹ Leave to appeal to SCC allowed, 39875 (2 December 2021).

³⁰ Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C 12, s 40 [CLRA].

³¹ Ibid, s 22(1).

³² Ibid, s 23.

³³ Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, ss 72–74 [FLA].

³⁴ Relying on McIntosh v Kaulbach, 2014 BCCA 299 at para 16; Falvai v Falvai, 2008 BCCA 503 at para 40.

³⁵ CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 11.

³⁶ Under the FLA, supra note 33, s 74.

³⁷ Addressing the relevant factors in the CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 11.

³⁸ Based on FLA, supra note 33, s 74; CJPTA (BC), supra note 2, s 11; with reference to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Can TS 1983 No 35, arts 3, 16 (entered into force 1 December 1983) [Hague Convention on Child Abduction].

³⁹ Hague Convention on Child Abduction, supra note 38; International Child Abduction Act, RSA 2002, c I-4, s 2.

⁴⁰ Hague Convention on Child Abduction, supra note 38, s 13(b).

⁴¹ Based on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, ibid; CLRA, supra note 30, s 13.

⁴² Hague Convention on Child Abduction, supra note 38.

⁴³ General principles from Catania v Giannattasio, [1999] OJ No 1197 (CA), applied relating to the exception to the rule that only courts of the country where the land is located have jurisdiction to decide disputes to title to the land.

⁴⁴ Referring to Van Breda, supra note 5.

⁴⁵ This is set out in Amchem Products Inc v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1993] 1 SCR 897 [Amchem].

⁴⁶ Ibid.

⁴⁷ Relying on discussion in Douez, supra note 23 at para 31.

⁴⁸ Applying the test in Amchem, supra note 45, and relying on factors in Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 34.

⁴⁹ Amchem, supra note 45.

⁵⁰ Relying in part on UD Trading Group summarized in text directly above.

⁵¹ Civil Code of Quebec, CCQ 1991, art 3148 [CcQ].

⁵² CQLR, c V1-1.1 [QSA].

⁵³ CcQ, supra note 51.

⁵⁴ Ibid, art 3135; Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c C-25.01, art 577.

⁵⁵ Leave to appeal to SCC requested (14 December 2021).

⁵⁶ QSA, supra note 52.

⁵⁷ Notably based on CcQ, supra note 51, art 3136.

⁵⁸ Consistent with CcQ, ibid, art 3148.

⁵⁹ Uber, supra note 25.

⁶⁰ Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39638 (29 July 2021) [Actava].

⁶¹ [1981] 2 SCR 392; see also Glegg v Glass, 2020 ONCA 833; Re Friction Division Products, Inc and EI Du Pont de Nemours & Co Inc et al (No 2) (1986), 56 OR (2d) 722; Presbyterian Church of Sudan v Taylor (2006), 215 OAC 140 (CA). The legislative basis for enforcing the LOR also included the Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5, s 46; Ontario Evidence Act, RSO 1990, c E.23, s 60.

⁶² See Treat American Ltd v Nestle Canada Inc, 2011 ONCA 560.

⁶³ This conclusion was based in part on reasoning in, e.g., Optimight Communications Inc v Innovance Inc (2002), 155 OAC 202 (CA).

⁶⁴ Actava, supra note 60 at para 82.

⁶⁵ RRO 1990, Reg 194, under Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c 43.

⁶⁶ Actava, supra note 60, along with factors confirmed in Perlmutter v Smith, 2021 ONCA 570.

⁶⁷ Relying on China Citic Bank Corp v Yang, 2016 BCSC 2332; Hornby Apartments Ltd v Le Soleil Hospitality Inc, 2009 BCSC 711.

⁶⁸ Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, RSO 1990, c R5 [REJA].

⁶⁹ Ibid, s 3(b).

⁷⁰ Ibid, s 3(g).

⁷¹ Ibid, s 3(b).

⁷² 2015 SCC 42, [2015] 3 SCR 69 [Chevron].

⁷³ REJA, supra note 68, s 1(1) (defining “judgment”).

⁷⁴ Note that the ONCA decision in this case relating to reciprocal enforcement of judgments was also recently considered in 687725 BC Ltd v Rakov, 2021 ABQB 462.

⁷⁵ Leave to appeal to SCC requested (20 October 2021).

⁷⁶ [1932] SCR 734 [Duke].

⁷⁷ 2006 SCC 52 [Pro Swing].

⁷⁸ Relevant legislative provisions are contained in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B3, ss 267, 269 [BIA].

⁷⁹ Pelletier (Re), 2020 ABQB 540, 82 CBR (6th) 197; BIA, supra note 78, s 284(2).

⁸⁰ BIA, supra note 78, s 272(1).

⁸¹ Relying on, for example, confirmation from Britton v Simon (Estate), 2016 SKQB 30.

⁸² Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, SS 2005, c E-9.121, ss 4, 8.

⁸³ SS 2006, c E-11.2, s 4(4).

⁸⁴ Note there was an unsuccessful attempt to have this matter reheard in Double Diamond Distribution Ltd v Garman Turner Gordon LLP, 2021 SKCA 152.

⁸⁵ Family Law Act, SNB 2020, c 23, s 72(1).

⁸⁶ 2021 ONSC 4779.

⁸⁷ Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3, s 22.

⁸⁸ Ibid.

⁸⁹ See e.g. Kadri v Kadri, 2015 ONSC 321.

⁹⁰ Divorce Act, supra note 87.

⁹¹ 2021 ABQB 531.

⁹² Based on the Extra-provincial Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, RSA 2000, c E-14, s 3.

⁹³ Ibid, s 4.

⁹⁴ Within the meaning of CcQ, supra note 51, art 3144(2).

⁹⁵ Leave to appeal refused, 2021 QCCA 789.

⁹⁶ CcQ, supra note 51, art 3155.

⁹⁷ Ibid; reference was also made to the interpretation of the article in RS v PR, 2019 SCC 49 at para 52.

⁹⁸ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 347.

⁹⁹ CcQ, supra note 51, art 3159. Jurisprudence from other jurisdictions also applied for this principle, including Wei v Li, 2019 BCCA 114; Transport North American Express Inc v New Solutions Financial Corp, 2004 SCC 7 at para 42.

¹⁰⁰ See e.g. Tolofson v Jensen, [1994] 3 SCR 1022.

¹⁰¹ Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318; Insurance (Vehicle) Act, RSBC 1996, c 231, s 821; Insurance (Vehicle) Regulations, BC Reg 48/2020, s 179; Miscellaneous Insurance Provisions Regulations, Alta Reg 120/2001, s 7.1.

¹⁰² Drawn from Minera Aquiline Argentina CA v IMA Exploration, 2006 BCSC 1102; Budget Rent A Car System Inc v Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance, 2018 BCSC 1564.

¹⁰³ Recent Canadian decisions informing this view included Das v George Weston Ltd, 2018 ONCA 1053, 43 ETR (4th) 173; Grayson Consulting Inc v Lloyd, 2019 ONCA 79; General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada, Ltd v Town and Country Chrysler Ltd, 2007 ONCA 904.