Stefan Bojeczko

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents injured in a motor vehicle accident in New York, sued the New York driver and their Ontario insurer in Ontario.

The defendant driver moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there were no presumptive connecting factors under the real and substantial connection test articulated in Van Breda.

The plaintiffs argued that their Ontario automobile insurance contract created a connecting factor and alternatively relied on the doctrine of forum of necessity due to alleged inadmissibility into the United States arising from a criminal record.

The court held that the insurance contract was not connected to the tort claim against the foreign defendant and therefore could not establish jurisdiction.

The court further held the plaintiffs failed to prove that litigation in New York was impossible or unreasonable, rejecting application of the forum of necessity doctrine.

The action was stayed against the foreign defendant.

The applicant, the stepmother of a man who had been missing for 16 years, applied for a declaration of death under the Declarations of Death Act, 2001.

The declaration was sought to distribute the missing man's share of his late father's intestate estate to his two half-sisters, the respondents.

The court reviewed the statutory requirement that an applicant make reasonable inquiries to locate the missing person.

Finding that the private investigator's search was rudimentary and lacked basic steps such as public notification or following up on property records, the court dismissed the application without prejudice, allowing it to be renewed once further reasonable steps were taken.

The appellants sought to challenge an order directing that an assessment proceed without consideration of negligence and failure to follow instructions.

The Court of Appeal held that, because leave to appeal from the earlier order had been denied, it was not open to revisit the merits of that order on this appeal.

The assessment officer was therefore bound to proceed on the basis set by the prior order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, although the court expressly stated it was not endorsing the proposition that no solicitor-client relationship existed.