Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Private International Law Volume 7, 2011 - Issue 2
Journal homepage
91
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

The Canadian Codification of Forum Non Conveniens

Stephen G.A. Pitel Associate Professor and Goodmans LLP Faculty Fellow in Legal Ethics 2010-11, University of Western Ontario ([email protected]). I am grateful to the Law Foundation of Ontario for its financial support, to my research student Stephanie Sugar for her assistance, and to two anonymous reviewers for their comments. This article is part of a larger research project on the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act that I am doing with Professor Vaughan Black of the Schulich School of Law and Michael Sobkin of the bar of British Columbia. Many of the Canadian cases cited in the article can be accessed online, whether or not the case has a neutral citation, through the public legal database maintained by the Canadian Legal Information Institute at  www.canlii.ca.
Pages 251-271 | Published online: 07 May 2015

  • Canada has ten provinces and three territories. General references to provinces should be understood as including both provinces and territories.
  • RSO 1990, c C.43, ss 11(2) and 106.
  • Available at www.ulcc.ca/en/us/Uniform_Court_Jurisdiction_+_Proceedings_Transfer_Act_En.pdf.
  • Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SS 1997, c C-41.1; Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SBC 2003, c 28; Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SNS 2003 (2nd Sess), c 2. As a result of some variations in each provincial enactment, such as the addition of a section setting out a short title for the statute, the section numbers in these statutes are not always the same as those in the model statute. Unless otherwise indicated, in this article references to the CJPTA and to specific section numbers refer to the model statute.
  • Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SY 2000, c 7; Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, SPEI 1997, c 61.
  • Alberta: Enforcement of Judgments (Final Report No 94, 2008), available at www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/docs/fr094.pdf; Manitoba: Private International Law (Report No 119, 2009), available at www.gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc/reports/119.pdf.
  • See the Consultation Paper by J Walker entitled “Reforming the Law of Crossborder Litigation: Judicial Jurisdiction” (2009), available at www.lco-cdo.org/en/judicial-jurisdiction-consultation-paper; V Black and SGA Pitel, “Reform of Ontario's Law on Jurisdiction” (2009) 47 Canadian Business Law Journal 469.
  • The province of Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction, and its law on taking and declining jurisdiction is codified in the Civil Code of Quebec, SQ 1991, c 64, Book 10, title 3.
  • Supra n 3, “Introductory comments”.
  • See Tolofson v Jensen [1994] 3 SCR 1022, 1049; GreCon Dimter Inc v JR Normand Inc [2005] 2 SCR 401, [58]; Muscutt v Courcelles (2002) 60 OR (3d) 20 (CA); Van Breda v Village Resorts Ltd (2010) 98 OR (3d) 721 (CA), [82].
  • [2009] 1 SCR 321, affg (2007) 67 BCLR (4th) 101 (CA), affg (2006) 60 BCLR (4th) 261 (SC).
  • Ibid, [21].
  • Ibid, [22]. It is worth contrasting the approach to the analogous provision of the Quebec Civil Code, supra n 8. Under its Art 3135 a Quebec court “may exceptionally…decline jurisdiction if it considers that the authorities of another country are in a better position to decide”. In Spar Aerospace Ltd v American Mobile Satellite Corp [2002] 4 SCR 205 the Supreme Court of Canada, in interpreting this provision, drew heavily on the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens but arguably stopped short of equating the two. The common law does not suggest that the doctrine is exceptional and the court emphasised that aspect of Art 3135 in its analysis: ibid, [77–82]. Unlike s 11, Art 3135 was not aiming to codify a common law doctrine.
  • See SGA Pitel and N Rafferty, conflict of Laws (Irwin Law Inc, 2010), ch 6; J Walker, Castel and Walker: Canadian conflict of Laws (LexisNexis Butterworths, 6th edn, looseleaf, 2005-), ch 13.
  • (1994) 19 OR (3d) 60 (CA).
  • Amchem Products Inc v British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) [1993] 1 SCR 897, 921.
  • Henry v Geoprosco International Ltd [1975] 3 WLR 620 (CA), 637.
  • See McCain Foods Ltd v Agricultural Publishing Co (1979) 26 OR (2d) 758 (CA); Mid-Ohio Imported Car Co v Tri-K Investments Ltd (1995) 13 BCLR (3d) 41 (CA), [15].
  • See eg Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 17.06(4); Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009, r 21–8(5).
  • O'Brien v Simard (2006) 55 BCLR (4th) 384 (SC), leave to appeal denied (2006) 230 BCAC 120 (CA), [9]; Coulson Aircrane Ltd v Pacifi c Helicopter Tours Inc (2006) 57 BCLR (4th) 226 (SC); Han v Cho (2006) 62 BCLR (4th) 358 (SC).
  • True North Seed Potato Co v HZPC Americas Corp (2007) 291 Sask R 30 (QB).
  • (2007) 70 BCLR (4th) 206 (CA), [22].
  • (2009) 86 CPC (6th) 128 (BCSC), leave to appeal granted 2010 BCCA 188.
  • (2007) 295 Sask R 70 (QB), [32].
  • The leading Canadian authority on the doctrine is Amchem, supra n 16.
  • See eg Eastern Power Ltd v Azienda Communale Energia (1999) 178 DLR (4th) 409 (Ont CA); 472900 BC Ltd v Thrifty Canada, Ltd (1998) 57 BCLR (3d) 332 (CA); Muscutt, supra n 10, [41]; Stern v Dove Audio Inc [1994] BCJ No 863 (SC) (QL), [62], affd [1994] BCJ No 2608 (CA) (QL).
  • See Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (HL).
  • Amchem, supra n 16.
  • Supra n 11.
  • Ibid, [108]-[109] (SC).
  • Ibid, [134] (SC).
  • Ibid, [60] (CA).
  • See eg Viroforce Systems Inc v R&D Capital Inc 2009 CarswellBC 2221 (SC).
  • See eg VMAC Racing Ltd v BR Motorsports Inc 2008 CarswellBC 1069 (SC), [20]-[21] and [46]; Thumbnail Creative Group Inc v Blu Concept Inc 2009 CarswellBC 3657 (SC), [15]; Borgstrom v Korean Air Lines Co 2007 CarswellBC 1544 (SC), [25].
  • See eg CKF Inc v Huhtamaki Americas Inc (2009) 275 NSR (2d) 67 (SC); McDermott Gulf Operating Co v Oceanographia Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable (2010) 290 NSR (2d) 118 (SC); Armco Capital Inc v Armoyan (2010) 289 NSR (2d) 201 (SC); Check Group Canada Inc v Icer Canada Corp [2010] NSJ No 699 (SC) (QL), [48]; Smith v Dawgs Canada Distribution Ltd (2008) 317 Sask R 1 (QB); Valeurs Mobilieres DPM Inc v American Home Assurance Co (2007) 300 Sask R 282 (QB).
  • Supra n 11, [110] (SC). See Coulson Aircrane, supra n 20, [53]–[61]; Borgstrom, supra n 34, [8]-[15].
  • Pitel and Rafferty, supra n 14, 237.
  • Ibid, 125–26.
  • Supra n 11, [130] (SC).
  • Pitel and Rafferty, supra n 14, 270.
  • See North America Steamships Ltd v HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers GmbH & Co (2009) 61 CBR (5th) 150 (BCSC), [39], revd on other grounds (2010) 10 BCLR (5th) 152 (CA); Penny (Litigation Guardian of) v Bouch (2008) 272 NSR (2d) 259 (SC), [65], affd (2009) 281 NSR (2d) 238 (CA).
  • It may, for example, be relatively easy for the courts of one province to apply the law of another province: see Harrison v Fedderly Transportation Ltd (2006) 60 BCLR (4th) 367 (SC), [20]. See, however, England v Research Capital Corp [2008] BCJ No 829 (SC) (QL), [64].
  • See eg Coulson Aircrane, supra n 20, [62]-[64].
  • In Hormandinger v Bender-Hormandinger (2007) 74 BCLR (4th) 371 (SC) the court was unable to determine the applicable law and so gave no weight to this factor. See also Brown v Miller (2008) 62 RFL (6th) 360 (BCSC), [49]; Valeurs Mobilieres, supra n 35, [30]-[37].
  • See Check Group Canada, supra n 35, [50]-[51].
  • In Gordon Estate v Venables 2008 CarswellBC 794 (SC), [14] the court noted “the fact that the Ontario proceeding was started a few weeks before the British Columbia proceeding is but one non-determinative factor to be considered”.
  • Supra n 20, [70]. See also Gordon Estate, ibid, [26] and [28].
  • Supra n 11, [24]-[30] (SCC).
  • See eg Coulson Aircrane, supra n 20, [71].
  • See eg Harrison, supra n 42, [21]; Hormandinger, supra n 44, [51]; Gordon Estate, supra n 46, [23]; Dawgs Canada, supra n 35, [63]; McDermott Gulf, supra n 35, [123]-[125].
  • Supra n 44, [52].
  • Supra n 44, [57].
  • Supra n 35, [53].
  • Ibid.
  • See for the Canadian law Pitel and Rafferty, supra n 14, ch 8; Walker, supra n 14, ch 14.
  • See Blazek, supra n 23, [86] (SC).
  • Supra n 11, [211] (SC).
  • Ibid, [213] (SC).
  • Supra n 44.
  • See Duke v Andler [1932] SCR 734.
  • Supra n 44, [60].
  • Supra n 44.
  • Ibid, [62].
  • Supra n 11, [214] (SC).
  • (2009) 277 NSR (2d) 124 (SC), [66].
  • See eg BNSF Railways v North American Reload Inc 2007 Carswell BC 1792, [19]; Blazek, supra n 23 (SC). See also CKF, supra n 35, [81].
  • Supra n 20, [73]-[78].
  • Pangli v Pangli 2009 CarswellBC 2035 (SC), [61]-[63].
  • See eg Harrison, supra n 42, [26]; Gordon Estate, supra n 46, [29]; Check Group Canada, supra n 35, [54].
  • (2009) 61 CBR (5th) 150 (BCSC), [47], revd on other grounds 2010 BCCA 501.
  • EF Scoles and P Hay, conflict of Laws (West Group, 3rd edn, 2000), 486.
  • In Cunningham v Hamilton (1997) 209 AR 123 (CA), [28] the court noted “We can think of no reason for the Alberta Courts to permit their already overtaxed resources to be used for an action that has so little connection to this jurisdiction”, but this was more by way of conclusion, based on the traditional factors, than reasoning.
  • See eg North America Steamships, supra n 70, [34]-[42].
  • See Teck Cominco, supra n 11, [157] (SC).
  • See supra n 66.
  • See ZI Pompey Industrie v ECU-Line NV [2003] 1 SCR 450. This approach would very likely be continued under the CJPTA.
  • Ibid, [21].
  • See Pitel and Rafferty, supra n 14, 128–29.
  • In Check Group Canada, supra n 35, [37] the court, prior to considering section 11, noted that “there may be other instances where the binding agreements between the parties override, or at least nullify, the need to conduct a forum non conveniens analysis”. On the facts the court found there was no such agreement and so proceeded with the standard s 11 analysis.
  • Supra n 11, [21] (SCC).
  • Ibid, [22] (SCC).
  • (2009) 98 BCLR (4th) 169 (SC), [131].
  • 2008 CarswellBC 1126 (SC). See also Teck Cominco, supra n 11, [141]-[153] (SC).
  • Supra n 70, [39].
  • Supra n 27.
  • Amchem, supra n 16.
  • See Pitel and Rafferty, supra n 14, [133]-[135].
  • (2007) 73 BCLR (4th) 355 (SC), [40]-[55].
  • Supra n 44, [66]-[68]. See also Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Wang (2006) 35 CPC (6th) 186 (Sask QB), [17]-[19]. Compare Olney v Rainville (2009) 95 BCLR (4th) 118 (CA), [45]-[53].
  • [2008] BCJ No 552 (SC) (QL), [33].
  • See Brown, supra n 44, [63].
  • See Teck Cominco, supra n 11, [23] (SCC).
  • See ibid, [157] (SC).
  • See eg The Children's Law Act, 1997, SS 1997, c C-8.2, s 16.
  • (2009) 337 Sask R 160 (CA), [27]-[30].
  • See Black and Pitel, supra n 7, 475.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.