https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Stephen Pitel https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Stephen Pitel2007-09-13 16:00:212007-09-13 16:00:21Forum Non Conveniens and Jurisdiction Clauses in Ontario
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has released Red Seal Tours Inc. v. Occidental Hotels Management B.V. (available here). The decision is of note for three reasons.
- The court reverses the motions judge’s decision not to grant a stay of proceedings. When these sort of conflicting decisions happen on the same facts, it can raise concerns about the way these motions prolong preliminary disputes in litigation.
- The court treats a contract that did not contain a jurisdiction clause as “part and parcel” of a series of related contracts that did contain such a clause (in favour of Aruba). The motions judge gave no effect to the clause, but the appeal court gives it central and crucial weight.
- The court’s order is to “permanently stay” the proceedings. For more on this language see C. Dusten and S.G.A. Pitel, “The Right Answer to Ontario’s Jurisdictional Questions: Dismiss, Stay or Set Service Aside” (2005) 30 Advocates’ Quarterly 297 at 308. I have troubles with the concept of a permanent stay, since by its nature a stay has a temporary quality (unlike a dismissal). I wonder if a “permanent stay” here could be seen to signal a move towards the notion of dismissing cases on the basis of forum non conveniens recently seen in the United States Supreme Court in Sinochem.