Ontario civil | Conflict Of Laws
JURISDICTION
Plaintiff would be calling larger number of witnesses located in Ontario
Defendant moved for stay on basis that Ontario court should not assume jurisdiction. Plaintiff sought damages for personal injury she suffered when she allegedly fell in defendant’s store after tripping over bunched up section of rug located at entrance. Store was located in New York. No one witnessed plaintiff’s fall. Motion dismissed. All damages and treatment were incurred in Ontario and there was significant connection between plaintiff’s claim and Ontario. There was connection between defendant and Ontario. Defendant was part of international organization that had stores in Ontario. Defendant advertised on Internet. It was not unfair to require defendant to defend action in Ontario. There was no evidence or law that New York would be unwilling to enforce extra-provincial judgment. Plaintiffs established real and substantial connection between forum and claim and between forum and defendant such that Ontario court may assume jurisdiction based on real and substantial connection test. New York was not more appropriate forum to displace Ontario as plaintiff’s forum of choice. Plaintiffs were in Ontario. Defendant conducted business in Ontario and had substantial connections and presence in Ontario. Plaintiffs would be calling larger number of witnesses, including medical experts who were located in Ontario. No other proceeding was commenced. New York state law would apply but it was similar to Ontario law. Ontario was forum conveniens.
Young v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (Mar. 27, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Gunsolus J., File No. 119/11) 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 734 (9 pp.).
Plaintiff would be calling larger number of witnesses located in Ontario
Defendant moved for stay on basis that Ontario court should not assume jurisdiction. Plaintiff sought damages for personal injury she suffered when she allegedly fell in defendant’s store after tripping over bunched up section of rug located at entrance. Store was located in New York. No one witnessed plaintiff’s fall. Motion dismissed. All damages and treatment were incurred in Ontario and there was significant connection between plaintiff’s claim and Ontario. There was connection between defendant and Ontario. Defendant was part of international organization that had stores in Ontario. Defendant advertised on Internet. It was not unfair to require defendant to defend action in Ontario. There was no evidence or law that New York would be unwilling to enforce extra-provincial judgment. Plaintiffs established real and substantial connection between forum and claim and between forum and defendant such that Ontario court may assume jurisdiction based on real and substantial connection test. New York was not more appropriate forum to displace Ontario as plaintiff’s forum of choice. Plaintiffs were in Ontario. Defendant conducted business in Ontario and had substantial connections and presence in Ontario. Plaintiffs would be calling larger number of witnesses, including medical experts who were located in Ontario. No other proceeding was commenced. New York state law would apply but it was similar to Ontario law. Ontario was forum conveniens.
Young v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (Mar. 27, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Gunsolus J., File No. 119/11) 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 734 (9 pp.).
