Banro Corporation v. Les Éditions Écosociété Inc.
Citation: Banro Corporation v. Les Éditions Écosociété Inc., 2010 ONCA 416 Date: 2010-06-07 Docket: C50209 Court of Appeal for Ontario Before: Weiler, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A.
Between:
Banro Corporation Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Les Éditions Écosociété Inc., Alain Deneault, Delphine Abadie, William Sacher Defendants (Appellants)
Counsel: William C. McDowell and Yashoda Ranganathan, for the appellants Lorne Honickman and Adam Dunlop, for the respondent
Heard: June 4, 2010
On appeal from the order of Justice L.B. Roberts of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 23, 2009.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] Although the Muscutt mechanics of the test for jurisdiction simpliciter were clarified and modified in Van Breda, the foundation of the test for assuming jurisdiction (whether there is a real and substantial connection between the Ontario court and the claim) remains the same.
[2] In our view, whether the Muscutt or Van Breda principles are applied, the decision of Justice Roberts remains sound. There is ample support in the record for her conclusion that there is a real and substantial connection in this case.
[3] Nor do we see any error in principle or misapplication of the facts in the exercise of her discretion with respect to the forum non conveniens analysis. There is therefore no basis for interfering with that decision. Even accepting Mr. McDowell's submission that the effect of Grant v. Torstar, 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 and Cusson v. Quan, 2009 SCC 62, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 712 is at least to attenuate the juridical advantage point (without determining that issue), there were sufficient other bases in the record to support the forum non conveniens decision.
[4] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
[5] Counsel have agreed on costs. The respondent is therefore entitled to its costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $12,000 all inclusive.