J. D. Dean

The moving defendants sought to set aside a noting in default and dismiss or stay an Ontario action arising from a motor vehicle collision in Pennsylvania on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Pennsylvania was the more appropriate forum.

Applying the framework in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that a real and substantial connection existed because one alleged joint tortfeasor was resident in Ontario and the plaintiff claimed inseparable damages against multiple defendants.

The court further held that the moving defendants failed to demonstrate that Pennsylvania was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, particularly given that most witnesses and the plaintiff’s damages evidence were located in Ontario.

The motions to dismiss or stay the action were therefore dismissed, although the noting in default against the moving defendants was set aside on consent.

The respondents sold a plot of land containing apartment buildings for $5,850,000, allocating $5,100,000 to the land and $750,000 to the buildings and equipment.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the allocation under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, adding recaptured capital cost allowances to the respondents' incomes.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 68 does not apply to a transaction involving only the disposition of property, as it requires the disposition of property and 'something else' other than property.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties' original allocation was upheld.