3 total
Action stayed based on forum selection clause despite Ontario court having jurisdiction simpliciter.
The plaintiff Ontario corporation sued the defendant Northern Ireland corporation for breach of contract regarding the delivery of a waste recycling facility.
The defendant moved to stay the action, arguing lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens based on a forum selection clause in its standard terms and conditions.
The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter due to a real and substantial connection to Ontario.
However, the court stayed the action, finding that the plaintiff was bound by the forum selection clause and failed to show strong cause why it should not be enforced.
Dismissal for delay set aside where prejudice rebutted despite unexplained litigation delay.
The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order for delay after the action was not set down for trial by a court‑ordered deadline.
The court applied the contextual approach articulated in appellate authority and considered the four factors governing such motions: explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice.
Although the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the prolonged litigation delay and did not establish inadvertence, the court found the motion was brought promptly and that the presumption of prejudice was rebutted.
Evidence of a Canada Revenue Agency investigation into the same investment demonstrated preservation of relevant documents and undermined claims of prejudice.
Balancing the factors contextually, the court set aside the dismissal order and allowed the action to proceed under a new timetable.
Medical Officer of Health exceeded statutory authority by issuing blanket smoking bans under the HPPA.
The Attorney General of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.
The Board had rescinded orders made by a local Medical Officer of Health that prohibited smoking in several hospitality businesses.
The Board found that the Medical Officer of Health exceeded his statutory authority under section 13 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act by issuing blanket, unit-wide orders rather than site-specific ones.
The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, dismissing the application for judicial review and awarding costs to the respondent businesses.
