No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 September 2018
1 2017 BCSC 1532, 100 BCLR (5th) 410.
2 Supreme Court Civil Rules , BC Reg 168/2009 as amended, Rule 21–8(1)(c).
3 2017 NSSC 288.
4 2017 ONSC 2780.
5 2017 ONSC 3423.
6 2017 ABQB 444 (Master).
7 Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28 [CJPTA BC]; Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SNS 2003 (2d Sess), c 2 [CJPTA NS]; Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SS 1997, c C-41.1 [CJPTA SK].
8 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 SCR 572, 343 DLR (4th) 577.
9 CJPTA BC, supra note 7, s 10.
10 2017 BCSC 1885.
11 2017 BCSC 1572, 1 BCLR (6th) 175.
12 2017 SKQB 309.
13 2017 SKQB 391.
14 2017 ONSC 3001.
15 2017 ONSC 1588.
16 2017 ONSC 5332, aff’d 2018 ONCA 626.
17 2017 NSSC 46, 7 CPC (8th) 401.
18 Named after Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA, [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509 (CA).
19 Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 SCC 34 at para 38, [2017] 1 SCR 824, 410 DLR (4th) 625 [Google].
20 Equustek Solutions Inc v Jack, 2015 BCCA 265 at paras 51–54, 386 DLR (4th) 224.
21 Google, supra note 19 at para 37.
22 Google LLC v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 US Dist LEXIS 206818 (ND Cal, 14 December 2017).
23 See Google LLC v Equustek Solutions Inc, 2017 US Dist LEXIS 182194 (ND Cal, 2 November 2017) (interlocutory injunction proceeding).
24 Equustek Solutions Inc v Jack, 2018 BCSC 610.
25 Ibid at para 20.
26 2017 BCSC 203, 97 CPC (7th) 271.
27 2017 BCSC 1202.
28 2017 ABQB 23.
29 2017 NSSC 97, 9 CPC (8th) 173.
30 2017 ABQB 76 (Master).
31 RSBC 1986, c 373, s 3(2) [Privacy Act]: “It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person to use the name or portrait of another for the purpose of advertising or promoting the sale of, or other trading in, property or services, unless that other … consents to the use for that purpose.”
32 Douez v Facebook Inc, 2014 BCSC 953.
33 Privacy Act, supra note 31, s 4.
34 Douez v Facebook Inc, 2015 BCCA 279, 77 BCLR (5th) 116 [Douez BCCA], noted in Blom, Joost, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2015” (2015) 53 CYIL 560 at 580 [Blom (2015)].Google Scholar
35 The Court of Appeal added, ibid at paras 48–58, that the BC legislature could not, even if it wanted to, lay down jurisdictional rules that operated extraterritorially so as to dictate that a particular type of action could not come before a foreign court. The Supreme Court of Canada did not refer to this “extraterritorial” point in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. It is suggested with respect that the Court of Appeal overstated the effect of what a statutory provision invalidating a forum selection clause does. It does not, even on its face, bar a foreign court from taking jurisdiction. It only guarantees a litigant the right to bring an action in British Columbia.
36 The only judge to take the opposite view was Abella, J. Douez v Facebook Inc, 2017 SCC 33 at para 107, [2017] 1 SCR 751, 411 DLR (4th) 434 [Douez].Google Scholar
37 CJPTA BC, supra note 7.
38 The leading Canadian authority is ZI Pompey Industrie v ECU-Line NV, 2003 SCC 27, [2003] 1 SCR 450 [Pompey].
39 One of the four, Abella J, also held that the clause was invalid as a matter of contract law.
40 Douez BCCA, supra note 34 at paras 74–80.
41 The accuracy of the “quasi-constitutional” description of the claim in Douez is debatable. The relevant provision, even if it is in the Privacy Act, supra note 31, is arguably concerned, not with a right of privacy, but with an economic right not to have one’s name or picture used for someone else’s profit. The common law equivalent is the tort of appropriation of personality.
42 2017 ABQB 567.
43 2017 MBCA 96, 417 DLR (4th) 444.
44 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37492 (8 June 2017).
45 Garcia v Tahoe Resources Ltd, 2015 BCSC 2045, noted in Blom (2015), supra note 34 at 585.
46 Originally in UK jurisprudence. AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd, [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804 (an appeal from the Isle of Man).
47 Leave to appeal to SCC granted, 37919 (14 June 2018).
48 The subsidiary was owned 60 percent by Nevson through intermediate entities and 40 percent by Eritrean state companies.
49 Araya v Nevsun Resources Ltd, 2016 BCSC 1856, noted in Blom, Joost, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2016” (2016) 54 CYIL 585 at 599 [Blom (2016)].Google Scholar
50 2017 BCSC 1858, 5 BCLR (6th) 205.
51 2017 BCCA 408, 6 BCLR (6th) 43.
52 2017 ONSC 5332, aff’d 2018 ONCA 626.
53 2017 ONSC 4129.
54 RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp).
55 RSO 1990, c F.3.
56 Leave to appeal to Sask CA granted (sub nom Boychuk v Hampton), 2017 SKCA 85 [Hampton].
57 Under the CJPTA SK, supra note 7.
58 Ibid.
59 One of the non-exhaustive list of forum non conveniens factors in the CJPTA SK, supra note 7, s 10(2)(f).
60 Hampton, supra note 56.
61 2017 ONSC 703, 92 RFL (7th) 431.
62 RSO 1990, c C.12, s 22.
63 2017 BCSC 277.
64 Family Law Act, SBC 2011, s 75(1). This provision was used, rather than the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, CTS 1983/35, 19 ILM 1501, because Taiwan is not a party to the convention.
65 2017 SKCA 23, 409 DLR (4th) 571.
66 Varied, 2018 BCCA 110, reversing certain orders on the ground that, having declined jurisdiction in the matter, the court lacked jurisdiction to make them.
67 CJPTA BC, supra note 7, s 10(j).
68 2017 BCCA 408.
69 2017 BCSC 178, 30 ETR (4th) 42, proceeding ordered transferred, 2017 BCSC 1183.
70 The ordinary residence of the deceased, the succession to whose movable property is in issue, is the criterion for a presumed real and substantial connection with the province for the purpose of determining territorial competence. CJPTA BC, supra note 7, s 10(b)(ii). The common law jurisdictional criterion for a wills variation proceeding relating to movables would have been domicile.
71 2017 YKSC 23.
72 RSC 1985, c C-36, Part IV.
73 Convention sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants, in English, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, supra note 64.
74 RLRQ, c A-23.01.
75 Autorisation de pourvoi à la CSC accordée, 37861 (26 juillet 2018).
76 LRC 1985, ch 3 (2e suppl).
77 2017 QCCS 5618.
78 2017 QCCS 4219.
79 2017 QCCS 2617.
80 2017 QCCS 627, autorisation de pourvoi à la CA Qc refusée, 2017 QCCA 453.
81 RLRQ, c C-25.01
82 CQLR, c P-40.
83 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 15 November 1965, 658 UNTS 163 (entered into force 10 February 1969), referred to in the Queen’s Bench Rules, Sask Gaz, 21 June 2013, 1370, r 12-12.
84 Queen’s Bench Rules, ibid, r 12-11–12-12.
85 2017 ONSC 4604.
86 2017 SCC 34, 410 DLR (4th) 625.
87 2017 ONSC 87, 97 CPC (7th) 121.
88 2017 QCCS 1723.
89 Before it heard the case, the Court of Appeal initially made an order that the plaintiffs post security for costs (2017 ONCA 741) but subsequently set it aside on the ground that, in the circumstances of the case, such an order was not in the interests of justice (2017 ONCA 827). Although it eventually dismissed the appeal in all other respects, the appeal court lowered the motion judge’s actual award of costs against the plaintiffs on the basis that they were excessive, considering the true nature of the litigation. The costs on appeal were agreed.
90 Chevron Corp v Donziger, 974 F Supp 2d 362 (SDNY 2014), aff’d 833 F 3d 74 (2d Cir 2016), cert den 2017 US LEXIS 3962 (US, 19 June 2017).
91 Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42, [2015] 3 SCR 69, noted in Blom (2015), supra note 34 at 569.
92 In a subsequent decision the same judge refused leave to add as a defendant the Nova Scotia holding company that owned Chevron Canada’s shares, on the basis that there was no viable claim against that company either. Yaiguaje v Chevron Corp, 2017 ONSC 604. The Court of Appeal agreed with the refusal to add the holding company as a defendant. Yaiguaje v Chevron Corp, 2018 ONCA 472 at para 84.
93 The BC provision is in the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009 as amended, r 21-8.
94 2017 ONSC 1929, 66 BLR (5th) 173.
95 2017 MBCA 12, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37470 (25 May 2017).
96 2017 ABQB 229 (Master).
97 Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, s 4.
98 Ibid, s 16(1)(b).
99 Ibid, s 5(1).
100 RSBC 1996, c 155.
101 2017 BCSC 48.
102 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37759 (15 March 2018).
103 SC 2012, c 1 [JVTA].
104 RSC 1985, c S-18, as am by SC 2012, c 1 [SIA].
105 JVTA, supra note 103, s 4(2).
106 Tracy (Litigation guardian of) v Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, 2014 ONSC 1696, noted in Blom, Joost, “Canadian Cases in Private International Law in 2014” (2014) 52 CYIL 571 at 605.Google Scholar
107 Tracy (Litigation guardian of) v Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, 2016 ONSC 3759, 400 DLR (4th) 670, noted in Blom (2016), supra note 49 at 626.
108 SIA, supra note 104, s 6.1(1).
109 RSO 1990, c I.9.
110 Ibid, Schedule.
111 Ibid, art 34(2)(a)(iii).
112 Ibid, art 34(2)(a)(ii).
113 2017 BCSC 596.
114 RSBC 1996, c 154.
115 Leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37554 (21 September 2017).
116 2017 ONSC 6957.
117 This is a common law ground for recognition preserved by the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s 22(3). Neither of the statutory grounds in s 22(1) or (2), one year’s residence of either party in the foreign jurisdiction immediately preceding the commencement of proceedings, or the wife’s domicile there at that time, applied on the facts.
118 Autorisation de pourvoi à la CSC accordée, 37893 (26 juillet 2018).
119 Carleton University v Threlfall, 2016 QCCS 406, noted in Blom (2016), supra note 49 at 632.
120 Carleton University v Threlfall, 2017 QCCA 1632 at para 68, 417 DLR (4th) 623.
121 2017 QCCS 3054.
122 Autorisation de pourvoi à la CSC refusée, 37545 (8 novembre 2017).
123 Il s’agit des beaux-parents par alliance de feu Yannick Fournier, mais non-pas de personnes énumérées au paragraphe 61(1) de la Loi sur le droit de la famille de l’Ontario, supra note 55. Ils ne pourraient donc pas recouvrir des intimés des dommages-intérêts à la suite du décès de Yannick Fournier en vertu du droit ontarien.