3 total
The Court of Appeal affirmed that mere advertising and third-party distribution do not constitute carrying on business for jurisdictional purposes.
The appellant brought four related actions against various respondents arising from dealings that occurred primarily in the United States between 2001 and 2016.
The respondents moved to dismiss or stay the actions on the ground that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a real and substantial connection to the province.
The motion judges granted the motions and dismissed all actions.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether Ontario jurisdiction existed based on: (1) consulting contracts allegedly entered into at Toronto airport; (2) products being advertised, marketed, and distributed in Ontario; and (3) respondents carrying on business in Ontario.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and affirming that mere advertising or distribution through third-party retailers does not constitute carrying on business in the jurisdiction.
Costs awarded on a partial indemnity scale following the dismissal of an action for want of jurisdiction.
The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for want of jurisdiction and sought their costs.
The plaintiffs argued they were impecunious and that no costs should be awarded.
The court held that impecuniosity does not immunize a party from costs, particularly where the action should not have been brought.
The court declined to award full or substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not reach the required threshold of reprehensible behavior.
Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants, fixed at $25,000 and $35,000 for fees, plus disbursements and HST.
The court dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction due to valid forum selection clauses and a lack of connection to Ontario.
The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, citing enforceable forum selection clauses, a lack of real and substantial connection between the litigation and Ontario, and abuse of process due to prior arbitration and litigation in California concerning the same subject matter.
The plaintiffs, largely self-represented, opposed the motion.
The court found that the forum selection clauses were valid and enforceable, Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as no presumptive connecting factors were established, and allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process given the prior resolutions in California.
The action was dismissed, and a sealing order was granted to protect confidential commercial information.
