The plaintiffs sued several Ontario doctors and hospitals, as well as a Florida chiropractor, for medical malpractice leading to the death of an Ontario resident.
The Florida chiropractor moved to stay the action against him, arguing lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
The motion judge dismissed the motion.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the 'real and substantial connection' test and the 'forum non conveniens' analysis must be applied to the action as a whole, not just the isolated claim against the foreign defendant.
Given the need to resolve relative responsibilities and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, Ontario was the appropriate forum.
