Views
Double Counting the Place of the Tort?
In common law Canada there is a clear separation between the question of a court having jurisdiction (jurisdiction simpliciter) and the question of a court choosing whether to exercise or stay its jurisdiction. One issue discussed in the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Haaretz.com v Goldhar (available here) is the extent of that separation. Does this separation mean that a particular fact cannot be used in both the analysis of jurisdiction and of forum non conveniens? On its face that seems wrong. A fact could play a role in two separate analyses, being relevant to each in different ways.
Justice Cote, with whom Justices Brown and Rowe agreed, held that “applicable law, as determined by the lex loci delicti principle, should be accorded little weight in the forum non conveniens analysis in cases where jurisdiction is established on the basis of the situs of the tort” (para 90). She indicated that this conclusion was mandated by the separation of jurisdiction and staying proceedings, which extends to each being “based on different factors”. So if the place of the tort has been used as the basis for assuming jurisdiction, the same factor (the place of the tort) should not play a role in analyzing the most appropriate forum when considering a stay. And since the applicable law is one of the factors considered in that analysis, if the applicable law is to be identified based on the connecting factor of the place of the tort, which is the rule in common law Canada, then the applicable law as a factor “should be accorded little weight”.
In separate concurring reasons, Justice Karakatsanis agreed that the applicable law “holds little weight here, where jurisdiction and applicable law are both established on the basis of where the tort was committed” (para 100). In contrast, the three dissenting judges rejected this reason for reducing the weight of the applicable law (para 208). The two other judges did not address this issue, so the tally was 4-3 for Justice Cote’s view.
As Vaughan Black has pointed out in discussions about the decision, the majority approach, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that if jurisdiction is based on the defendant’s residence in the forum then the defendant’s residence is not a relevant factor in assessing which forum is more appropriate. That contradicts a great many decisions on forum non conveniens. Indeed, the court did not offer any supporting authorities in which the “double counting” of a fact was said to be inappropriate.
The majority approach has taken analytical separation too far. There is no good reason for excluding or under-weighing a fact relevant to the forum non conveniens analysis simply because that same fact was relevant at the jurisdiction stage. Admittedly the court in Club Resorts narrowed the range of facts that are relevant to jurisdiction in part to reduce overlap between the two questions. But that narrowing was of jurisdiction. Forum non conveniens remains a broad doctrine that should be based on a wide, open-end range of factors. The applicable law, however identified, has to be one of them.
The Most Appropriate Forum: Assessing the Applicable Law
Another issue in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Haaretz.com v Goldhar (available here) involves the applicable law as a factor in the forum non conveniens analysis. It is clear that one of the factors in determining the most appropriate forum is the applicable law. This is because it is quite easy for the forum to apply its own law and rather more difficult for it to apply the law of another jurisdiction.
So if the defendant can show that the forum would apply not its own law but rather the law of another jurisdiction, that points to a stay of proceedings in favour of that other jurisdiction. In contrast, if the plaintiff can show that the forum would apply its own law, that points against a stay of proceedings. In Haaretz.com the plaintiff was able to show that the Ontario court would apply Ontario law, not Israeli law. So the applicable law factor favoured Ontario.
Not so, argued the defendant, because an Israeli court would apply Israeli law (see para 88). So as between the two jurisdictions neither was any more convenient than the other!
In the Supreme Court of Canada, four of the judges rejected the defendant’s rejoinder. The dissenting judges held that “[i]t is entirely appropriate, in our view, for courts to only look at the chosen forum in determining the applicable law. Requiring courts to assess the choice of law rules of a foreign jurisdiction may require extensive evidence, needlessly complicating the pre-trial motion stage of the proceedings” (para 207). In separate concurring reasons, Justice Karakatsanis agreed with the dissent on this point (para 100). So because Ontario would apply Ontario law, this factor favours proceedings in Ontario rather than proceedings in Israel.
In contrast, Justice Cote, with whom Justices Brown and Rowe agreed, stated that “I am concerned that disregarding the applicable law in the alternative forum is inconsistent with the comparative nature of the forum non conveniens analysis” (para 89). She cited in support an article by Brandon Kain, Elder C. Marques and Byron Shaw (2012). The other two judges did not comment on this issue, so the court split 4-3 against looking at the applicable law in the alternative forum.
There is force to the practical concern raised by the dissent, and even with the assistance of the parties in many cases the court will be unable to form a sufficiently strong view as to what law the foreign forum would apply. But conceptually it does seem that if it is established that the foreign forum will apply its own law, that should go to negate the benefits of the plaintiff’s chosen forum applying its own law. Neither is any more convenient where compared against the other.
Perhaps because of the novelty of the approach, Justice Cote’s application of it may have missed the mark. She held that “[a]s each forum would apply its own law, the applicable law factor cannot aid Haaretz in showing that it would be fairer and more efficient to proceed in the alternative forum” (para 88). But the true point flowing from establishing that Israel would apply Israeli law, it would seem, should be that the applicable law factor cannot aid Goldhar (the plaintiff) in showing that it would be fairer and more efficient to proceed in Ontario. If it cannot aid Haaretz.com that Israel would apply its own law, then how is the factor relevant and why is the court indicating a willingness to consider it? It surely could not aid Haaretz.com that Israel would apply some other law.
On a motion for a stay, if the court did know what law would be applied in both the chosen forum and the alternative forum, we would have four possible situations. On Justice Cote’s approach, if both forums would apply their own law, this is a neutral factor. Similarly, if both forums would apply law other than forum law, this is also a neutral factor. In the other two situations, the applicable law factor favours the forum that would be applying its own law. With the court splitting 4-3 against looking at the applicable law in the alternative forum, this is not the approach – but should it be?
The Role of Foreign Enforcement Proceedings in Forum Non Conveniens
The doctrine of forum non conveniens, in looking to identify the most appropriate forum for the litigation, considers many factors. Two of these are (i) a desire to avoid, if possible, a multiplicity of proceedings and (ii) any potential difficulties in enforcing the decision that results from the litigation. However, it is important to keep these factors analytically separate.
In the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Haaretz.com v Goldhar (available here) Justice Abella noted that “enforcement concerns would favour a trial in Israel, in large part because Haaretz’s lack of assets in Ontario would mean that any order made against it would have to be enforced by Israeli courts, thereby raising concerns about a multiplicity of proceedings” (para 142). Similarly, Justice Cote concluded (paras 82-83) that the fact that an Ontario order would have to be enforced in Israel was a factor that “slightly” favoured trial in Israel.
Justice Abella has arguably conflated the two factors rather than keeping them separate. The concerns raised by a multiplicity of proceedings tend to focus on substantive proceedings rather than on subsequent procedural steps to enforce a judgment. Courts rightly try to avoid substantive proceedings in more than one jurisdiction that arise from the same factual matrix, with one of the core concerns being the potential for inconsistent findings of fact. Of course, enforcement proceedings do involve an additional step that is avoided if the judgment can simply be enforced locally. But that, in itself, should not be grouped with the kinds of concerns raised by multiple substantive proceedings. It will be unfortunate if subsequent courts routinely consider contemplated foreign enforcement proceedings as raising a multiplicity of proceedings concern.
Justice Cote (with whom Justices Brown and Rowe agreed) did not conflate enforcement proceedings and the concern about multiplicity. However, it should be noted that Club Resorts, which she referenced on this point, stated (para 110 that “problems related to the recognition and enforcement of judgments” is a relevant factor for forum non conveniens. The stress there should be on “problems”. If it can be anticipated that there may be problems enforcing the judgment where the assets are, that is an important consideration. But if no such problems are anticipated, the mere fact that enforcement elsewhere is contemplated should not point even “slightly” against the forum as the place for the litigation. In Haaretz.com the judges who consider the enforcement factor did not identify any reason to believe that enforcement proceedings in Israel would be other than routine.
The dissenting judges (Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Moldaver and Gascon) properly separated these two factors in their analysis (paras 234-237). They did not treat enforcement proceedings as part of the analysis of a multiplicity of proceedings. On enforcement, their view was that in defamation proceedings it is often sufficient just to obtain the judgment, in vindication of the plaintiff’s reputation, and that enforcement can thus be unnecessary or “irrelevant” (para 236). Justice Cote strongly disagreed (para 83). Leaving that dispute to one side, the dissent could have also made the point that this was not a case where any “problems” had been raised about enforcement in Israel.
News
International succession and the lex rei sitae: book by Naivi Chikoc Barreda
This summary was provided by the author, Naivi Chikoc Barreda, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa.
The book Succession internationale et dispositions spéciales de la lex rei sitae. Contribution à l’étude de l’impérativité internationale en matière successorale by Naivi Chikoc Barreda (L’Harmattan, Paris, December 2022) offers an in-depth reflection on the subject of overriding mandatory provisions in matters of succession, through an analysis of the clause allowing the application of the special provisions of the lex rei sitae which derogate from the unitary law of succession.
In Part I, the author traces the historical origins of the “territorial exception” to the unitary system in German legal literature and studies its subsequent development in the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code and in the convention drafts drawn up by the Hague Convention between 1900 and 1928. Theorized by Savigny under the concept of “Gesetze von zwingender, streng positiver Natur“, these special rules were associated with the public policy clause by the Hague drafts, under the influence of the Mancinian doctrine. To explain this convergence, the author analyzes the relationship between public policy and territoriality in the period in which these projects were conceived. The clause concerning the special regimes of the situs was finally detached from the public policy exception in the 1989 Convention. However, the methodological transformations in the field of Private international law during the second half of the XXth century left the phenomenon in a shadowy area. Unable to fit into the “new” approaches to public policy and overriding mandatory provisions, the derogatory application of the lex rei sitae took the form of a substantially oriented conflict rule. When the European legislator decided to insert the clause in Article 30 of Regulation 650/2012, it discarded the conflictual model and adopted the method of “lois de police”, thus restoring the Savignian understanding of this exception. The author discusses the reasons for this methodological choice, by exploring the family, economic and social purposes of these rules in accordance with the principles underlying the autonomous interpretation of the regulation.
Part II addresses the complex issues arising out of the interaction between succession and other choice-of-law categories involved in the transfer of certain assets upon death. Most of the special provisions examined are at the intersection of several categories, their goal being precisely to ensure the stability of the function that the assets have been serving before the opening of the succession. Thus, it appeared important to distinguish between the ways in which property can be transferred otherwise than by succession, the rules for the distribution of particular assets of the estate, and the rules “affecting” the succession on such property. In the light of the CJEU case law, the author examined the treatment of the constitution of rights in rem by way of succession, the restriction on the acquisition of property by foreigners or non-residents, the transmission of the tenant’s rights after his death, the transfer of company shares, and the succession of the author’s droit de suite. An analytical framework is then proposed to delineate the respective scopes of the lex successionis, the lex rei sitae, the law governing matrimonial property regimes, the law applicable to maintenance obligations, the lex contractus, the lex societatis and the lex loci protectionis.
An extensive analysis is devoted to the compatibility between the clause on the special rules of the lex rei sitae and the concept of overriding mandatory provisions, as formulated in various regulations and interpreted by the CJEU. Two fundamental obstacles seem to prevent such integration: the absence of any reference to the protection of public interests and to the mandatory nature of the rules. Indeed, many of the special rules dealing with the transfer of particular assets for socio-economic purposes are either limited to enabling the owner to allocate the property according to some criteria or are default rules that apply absent a contrary disposition by the deceased. Despite the wording of the clause, the author argues for a shared intertextual interpretation of lois de police that brings the succession regulation in line with the position of other regulations on this issue. The traditional distinction between lois de police and the rules which are only mandatory at a domestic level is subject to a critical analysis from a new angle. The comparative study of the special rules of the lex rei sitae that intervene in succession matters leads the author to deconstruct the concentric circles theory that explain the convergence of both concepts on a core of super-imperative rules. Based on the interaction between the nature of the rule and its purpose in the law of succession, she explains the differences in the relationship of these special rules with party autonomy on a substantive and a PIL level. From this perspective, some permissive and default rules of the situs are consistent with a functional conception of lois de police, freed from a concrete regulatory technique that is supposedly the only one suited to the pursuit of a public interest policy, and therefore deserve to be recognized as potentially having an overriding effect on the lex causae.
New Private International Law Article in Current Legal Problems
The journal, Current Legal Problems yesterday, inter alia, published an open access article on private international law:
Alex Mills, “The Privatisation of Private (and) International Law”
Privatisation is much studied and debated as a general phenomenon, including in relation to its legal effects and the challenges it presents to the boundaries of public and private law. Outside the criminal context there has however been relatively limited focus on privatisation of the governmental functions which are perhaps of most interest to lawyers—law making, law enforcement and dispute resolution—or on the international legal implications of privatisation. This article argues that modern legal developments in the context of private law and cross-border private legal relations—generally known as party autonomy in private international law—can be usefully analysed as two distinct forms of privatisation. First, privatisation of certain allocative functions of public and private international law, in respect of both institutional and substantive aspects of private law regulation, through the legal effect given to choice of court and choice of law agreements. Second, privatisation of the institutional and substantive regulation of private legal relationships themselves, through arbitration and the recognition of non-state law. Together, these developments have established a global marketplace of state and non-state dispute resolution institutions and private laws, which detaches private law authority from its traditional jurisdictional anchors. Analysing these developments through the lens of privatisation highlights a number of important critical questions which deserve greater consideration—this article further examines in particular whether this form of privatisation in fact increases efficiency in either private international law decision-making or private law dispute resolution, as well as its distributive and regulatory effects.
Out now: Private International Law and Arbitral Jurisdiction by Faidon Varesis
Ever since the infamous West Tankers saga,
if not before, the interplay between the international jurisdiction of national courts and arbitral tribunals has been subject to a constant stream of publications. Writing a monograph on this topic that is both fundamental and innovative in this field is therefore no small feat – making this book by Faidon Varesis, which has come out at the beginning of the year and is based on his Cambridge dissertation, all the more impressive. Read more