3 total
Using a vehicle for transportation triggered no-fault coverage and barred the civil claim.
On an appeal from Quebec, the Court addressed whether a fatal injury suffered when a tree fell onto a vehicle was damage caused by an automobile under the provincial no-fault automobile insurance statute.
The Court reaffirmed a broad, remedial interpretation of the statute and held that a traditional fault-based causation analysis does not govern this scheme.
It concluded that use of a vehicle as a means of transportation is sufficient at minimum to engage the statutory definition of accident, even where the vehicle’s role is not active.
Because the claim fell within the statutory scheme, the civil action in damages was barred and compensation had to be sought through the public insurer.
The appellate judgment was set aside and the dismissal of the action was restored.
Arbitration clause in online consumer contract accessible via hyperlink is valid and enforceable.
The appellant, Dell, sold computers online and mistakenly posted incorrect low prices.
The respondent consumer ordered a computer at the incorrect price using a deep link.
When Dell refused to honour the order, the consumer sought to institute a class action.
Dell applied to refer the claim to arbitration based on a clause in its terms and conditions.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitration clause was valid and not an external clause, as it was reasonably accessible via hyperlink.
The Court also held that under the competence-competence principle, the arbitrator should rule first on their own jurisdiction, and that the arbitration clause did not contain a foreign element that would trigger the application of the rules on the international jurisdiction of Quebec authorities.
The appeal was allowed and the matter referred to arbitration.
Quebec courts have jurisdiction to issue extraterritorial injunctions; enforcement difficulties do not justify forum non conveniens.
The respondent, Transat Tours Canada Inc., sought an injunction in Quebec Superior Court against several Mexican corporations for breach of an exclusive hotel room leasing contract containing a Quebec forum selection clause.
The Mexican defendants brought a motion for declinatory exception, arguing the Quebec courts lacked jurisdiction to issue extraterritorial relief and should decline jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction and that the difficulty of enforcing extraterritorial orders does not negate this power or automatically trigger forum non conveniens.
