David A. Ziegler

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision finding that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum for their fraud claim.

The appellants argued the claim was based on omissions occurring in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's conclusion that France was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs, an Ontario corporation and its sole shareholder, initiated an action against two French residents for alleged negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the purchase of a French medical device manufacturer.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and that France was a clearly more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The court found that the alleged tort of misrepresentation occurred in France, where the misinformation was received and acted upon, not in Ontario where the plaintiffs felt the impact or signed some documents.

Consequently, the court determined there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario and granted the defendants' motion, staying the action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to deliver a new affidavit after cross-examinations for use on the defendants’ pending jurisdiction motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed evidence did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, the plaintiffs provided no reasonable explanation for the delay in tendering the affidavit, and granting leave would cause undue prejudice and delay, contrary to the principles of efficient litigation.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a default judgment obtained by the respondent in Minnesota for the supply of defective goods.

The appellant argued that a forum selection clause in its quotation conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ontario courts, that Minnesota lacked a real and substantial connection to the dispute, and that enforcement was contrary to public policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the forum selection clause was permissive rather than exclusive, a real and substantial connection to Minnesota existed, and the public policy defence did not apply.

The court issued supplementary reasons for decision following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff, Select Comfort Corporation, was granted judgment to enforce a foreign judgment.

Plaintiff's counsel advised of a mistaken submission regarding the applicability of the Limitation Convention, which was incorrectly argued to contain a four-year limitation period under Ontario law.

Despite this error, the court confirmed its original decision, finding that the defendant's public policy defence based on alleged circumvention of limitation periods still failed, as enforcing a foreign judgment obtained in a jurisdiction with a real and substantial connection, even if the action would have been statute-barred in Ontario, does not offend Canadian public policy.

The plaintiff, Select Comfort Corporation, brought a summary judgment motion to enforce a default judgment obtained in Minnesota against the defendant, Maher Sign Products Inc. Maher Sign Products Inc. defended on grounds including lack of real and substantial connection, an exclusive choice of forum clause favoring Ontario, public policy (statute-barred claim), and fraud.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Minnesota, clarified that a forum selection clause does not oust jurisdiction simpliciter but rather relates to the exercise of jurisdiction, and dismissed the public policy and fraud defences.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, enforcing the foreign judgment.

The applicant, a lawyer, sought judicial review of Legal Aid Ontario's decision refusing to enter his name on its duty counsel and certificate panels.

The applicant bypassed the statutory internal review and hearing processes, arguing that Legal Aid Ontario was biased and in a conflict of interest due to his ongoing wrongful dismissal lawsuit against them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that allegations of bias do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying judicial intervention before administrative remedies are exhausted.