Sentences with phrase «substantial connection test»

The real and substantial connection test is not concerned with showing «the strongest» possible connection between the claim and the forum where jurisdiction is sought.

Finally, there is the 2005 article by Joost Blom and Elizabeth Edinger in the U.B.C. Law Review, The Chimera of the Real and Substantial Connection Test,

This decision clarifies two of the lingering questions from Van Breda, namely whether enforcement proceedings were subject to the same real and substantial connection test, and whether the traditional means of establishing jurisdiction were replaced or limited by the real and substantial connection requirement.

The court also went on to hold that the real and substantial connection test, recently clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, is not a consideration in determining jurisdiction if the traditional methods of finding jurisdiction are present — that is, if the defendant was served in Ontario or consented to the Ontario courts having jurisdiction.

The real and substantial connection test has never been concerned with showing «the strongest» possible connection between the claim and the forum where jurisdiction is sought.

[11] The motion judge's assessment and application of real and substantial connection test in this case would lead to the surprising proposition that a Canadian corporation headquartered in Ontario can not use Ontario courts to enforce legal obligations owed to it under Ontario law by current and former senior officers who routinely traveled to Ontario on company business and who were in daily contact with the company in Ontario.

-- Consideration of jurisdiction simpliciter and the real and substantial connection test should not anticipate, incorporate or replicate consideration of the matters that pertain to forum non conveniens test.

-- Whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature, and comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement prevailing elsewhere are relevant considerations, not as independent factors having more or less equal weight with the others, but as general principles of private international law that bear upon the interpretation and application of the real and substantial connection test.

«In recognition and enforcement actions relating to foreign judgments in Canadian jurisdictions, the exclusive focus of the real and substantial connection test is on the foreign jurisdiction.

the exclusive focus of the real and substantial connection test is on the foreign jurisdiction.

Not exact matches

The usual response is for the defendant to challenge the plaintiff's choice of forum by bringing a motion to stay the action based upon lack of subject - matter jurisdiction and / or personal jurisdiction (the reformulated Van Breda test for assumed jurisdiction based upon a «real and substantial connection»).

The test for determining whether or not PIPEDA will govern the transmission of information is whether there is a «real and substantial connection'to Canada1; therefore, a Canadian company transmitting information abroad, or a foreign company transmitting information into Canada that discloses personal information about Canadians might both lead to a complaint to the Commissioner.

In opposing jurisdiction, Chevron and Chevron Canada contended that the Court must apply the «real and substantial connection» test at two stages in determining whether to enforce a foreign judgment:

The application of the «real and substantial connection» test for enforcement of foreign judgments was further clarified by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a recent decision, part of a bitter and protracted legal battle over nearly $ 10 billion in environmental damages caused by the operations of Texaco (later acquired by the defendant Chevron) in Ecuador.

The Sacks panel held that a trial judge should not use the word «necessary» in explaining the meaning of the but - for test to a jury, because all the but - for test requires is a «real and substantial connection» between the negligence and the injury.

«The «but for» test recognizes that compensation for negligent conduct should only be made «where a substantial connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct» is present.»

The Ontario Court applied «real and substantial connection» test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Van Breda, and considered i) whether the contract was made in Ontario and ii) whether Cliffs carried on business on Ontario.

Specifically, it clarified the rules for applying the real and substantial test to determining if there is a sufficient connection between the subject matter of the action and the jurisdiction for determining jurisdiction simpliciter.

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada have clarified the test that the courts must use to determine if there exists the necessary «real and substantial connection» between the jurisdiction and the subject litigation.

The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of language in the reviewable practice itself expressly limiting its application only to conduct in Canada (an express territorial limitation), the Tribunal will apply the «real and substantial connection» test to define the boundaries of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Thus, in applying the «but for» test, the trial judge was required to consider not just whether the defendant's conduct was the sole cause of the plaintiff's disabling pain, but also whether the plaintiff had established a substantial connection between the accident and that pain, beyond the de minimus [sic] level.

Several commentators have suggested that the expansion of the «real and substantial connection» test to include notions of fairness or foreign enforceability, and the overlap with factors that should really be left for the second - stage «forum» analysis, is not only contrary to established precedent, but has resulted in confusion and uncertainty for both judges and litigants.

This test «recognizes that compensation for negligent conduct should only be made «where a substantial connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct» is present»: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 (CanLII), 2007 SCC 7 at paras. 21 - 23.

Whatever else Clements means, it unquestionably holds that the but - for test is a test based on «necessity», not merely «substantial connection» beyond de minimus, and that «material contribution» is not a reference to some method of establishing factual causation on the balance of probability.

[11] Thus, in applying the «but for» test, the trial judge was required to consider not just whether the defendant's conduct was the sole cause of the plaintiff's disabling pain, but also whether the plaintiff had established a substantial connection between the accident and that pain, beyond the de minimus level.

[11] Thus, in applying the «but for» test, the trial judge was required to consider not just whether the defendant's conduct was the sole cause of the plaintiff's disabling pain, but also whether the plaintiff had established a substantial connection between the accident and that pain, beyond the de [minimis] level.

[59] The primary test to be applied in determining causation is commonly articulated as the «but for» test: a defendant will be fully liable for the harm suffered by a plaintiff, even if other causal factors were at play, so long as the plaintiff establishes a «substantial connection» between the injuries and the defendant's negligence beyond the de minimus range: Farrant v. Latkin, 2011 BCCA 336 (B.C.C.A), at paras 9 and 11; Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; Blackwater v. Plint, 2005 SCC 58; Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7; Clements v.Clements,, 2012 SCC 32.

It's a decision that stands in sharp contrast to Van Breda, where Canadian courts were able to claim jurisdiction, for a case involving injuries on a Cuban resort, based on a test establishing «real and substantial connection» to Canada.