Skip this Video
Download Presentation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 10

Recap - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Recap. Please write down: One thing you know about the Morguard decision. One thing you would like to know about the Morguard decision. Jurisdiction: Concepts to Grapple with Today. jurisdiction simpliciter ‘jurisdictional facts’ discretion forum non conveniens

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Recap' - irma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Please write down:

  • One thing you know about the Morguard decision.
  • One thing you would like to know about the Morguard decision.
jurisdiction concepts to grapple with today
Jurisdiction: Concepts to Grapple with Today
  • jurisdiction simpliciter
  • ‘jurisdictional facts’
  • discretion
  • forum non conveniens
  • relationship between rules of BC Supreme Court and SCC rulings
  • role of Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act
uninet technologies inc v communication services inc 2005 bcca
UniNet Technologies Inc. v Communication Services Inc. 2005 BCCA
  • ‘The circumstances of this case are a reflection of the globalization of the Internet-based economy and the ability of modern business entities to move assets and information across borders at their interests may dictate. It is not surprising that these circumstances are difficult to fit into traditional legal concepts of jurisdiction and even into their modern touchstone, “real and substantial connection.”’
  • facts?
  • area of law?
no tort within BC, but jurisdiction simpliciter is established on the basis of real and substantial connection to leave granted retroactively (interesting Latin to note)
  • How to determine if jurisdiction simpliciter exists?
    • look to pleadings, look for jurisdictional facts
    • unpleaded jurisdictional facts
    • any challenge by the defendant
the only test is ‘real and substantial’ connection. no hard and fast rules.
  • may lower the bar in some circumstances
  • ‘fleeting or relatively unimportant connection’ not enough
  • degree of connection may vary with subject matter
  • mustn’t be mechanical or inflexible
  • traditional rules (power over D, situs of the tort, place of perfc of k…) and & rules of court just a starting point
  • Morguard: comity, order and fairness
cresbury v cibc 2006 bcca
Cresbury v CIBC 2006 BCCA
  • facts?
  • area of law?
  • attempting to bring suit in BC against CIBC
  • jurisdiction simpliciter is conceded, CIBC has agreed to ‘attorn’ to Swiss jurisdiction: question is discretion to decline
  • key case to follow: Amchem Products v BC (Workers’ Comp Board) 1993 SCC
actions should be tried in the jurisdiction to which they have the closest connection, unless the requirements of justice determine otherwise
  • forum conveniens analysis: each party’s residence and place of business, locus of cause of action, locus of damage or loss, juridical advantages/disadvantages, convenience/inconvenience to witnesses, cost, applicable law
  • must accord with the principles of comity
  • forum shopping is not to be encouraged
most important facts?
    • bond for suit
    • no discovery
    • Swiss banking secrecy
    • unjust enrichment
    • criminal claims
    • parallel proceedings
    • law not argued
    • scope of appellate review
ingenium technologies corp v mcgraw hill companies inc bcca 2005
Ingenium Technologies Corp v McGraw-Hill Companies Inc BCCA 2005
  • facts?
  • area of law?
  • a forum conveniens question with direct parallel proceedings (i.e. subset of the problem in Cresbury)
  • jurisdiction simpliciter not in issue
  • NY court has positively asserted jurisdiction
  • express provision that contract subject to BC and Canadian law
existence of parallel proceedings does not trump all other factors
  • the principle of comity governs: no determinative factors
  • anti-suit injunctions / stay proceedings
  • parallel actions to be avoided unless clear juridical advantage, rt to sue in court of choice not a significant factor, aim is to avoid conflicting decisions
  • choice of law in agreement not determinative
  • declining jurisdiction does not limit argument and it saves time and cost.
  • note dissent!!