2 total
Appeal dismissed; appellant's mental health challenges did not establish Ontario as a forum of necessity.
The appellant sued the Government of Nunavut in Ontario for wrongful dismissal.
The motion judge found no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Nunavut was the more appropriate forum.
On appeal, the appellant argued Ontario was a 'forum of necessity' because returning to Nunavut would trigger severe mental illness symptoms.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant's mental health challenges did not rise to the exceptional level required for the forum of necessity doctrine, noting that accommodations could be sought in a Nunavut court.
Ontario lacked jurisdiction over wrongful dismissal claim against Nunavut government.
The defendant territorial government brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay a wrongful dismissal action commenced in Ontario by a former employee who had worked in Nunavut.
The court applied the jurisdiction simpliciter test from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda to determine whether a real and substantial connection existed between the dispute and Ontario.
The plaintiff relied on factors including recruitment activities, an Ottawa liaison office, the use of an Ontario-based investigator, and the administration of disability benefits in Ontario.
The court held these did not establish that the defendant carried on business in Ontario and therefore no presumptive connecting factor existed.
In any event, the court found that Nunavut would clearly be the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
