CITATION: Unity Life of Canada v. Worthington Émond Beaudin Services Financiers Inc., 2010 ONCA 283

DATE: 20100416

DOCKET: C50706

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Sharpe, Cronk and MacFarland JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Unity Life of Canada

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Worthington Émond Beaudin Services Financiers Inc., Charles Worthington, Denis Beaudin and Michael Émond

Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel:

Tim Pinos and Ted Frankel, for the plaintiff (appellant)

Timothy Morgan, for the defendants (respondents)

Heard: April 16, 2010

On appeal from the judgment of Justice G. Strathy of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 2, 2009.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We see no error on the part of the motion judge in relation to the application of the real and substantial connection test. Whether viewed from the perspective of Muscutt, the decision applied by the motion judge, or from the perspective of Van Breda, handed down after the motion judge decided this case, we agree with the motion judge that on the facts of this case the real and substantial connection test had not been met.

[2] We do not agree that the motion judge raised the bar too high in this application of the real and substantial connection test or that he failed to give adequate weight to the fact that as the plaintiff’s head office is Ontario, it could be said to have suffered damages in Ontario or that such damages were foreseeable.

[3] In any event, we see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s exercise of discretion in finding that jurisdiction should be declined on the basis of forum non conveniens.

[4] Appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $6000 inclusive of disbursement and GST.