In a combative 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada attempts to clarify when a contract made in Ontario creates a real and substantial connection for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction over an out-of-province defendant. In Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo1 two strong opinions review the legal framework that guides the application of the fourth presumptive connecting factor for the assumption of jurisdiction established in the seminal case of Van Breda.2
Background: Venetian vacation results in injury
Duncan and Michelle Sinclair, and their son, all Ontario residents, were injured in a water taxi accident while on vacation in Italy. The water taxi had been arranged through Centurion Travel Service, a concierge and travel agent service to which Mr. Sinclair had access through his American Express Centurion credit card. The service carries on business in Canada on behalf of Amex Canada Inc ("Amex Canada"). The water taxi was owned and operated by various Italian defendants.
Upon returning to Ontario, the Sinclairs commenced an action against Amex and the Italian defendants seeking damages arising out of the accident. The Italian defendants moved to stay the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.
Lower Courts Split on Jurisdiction
The motion judge assumed jurisdiction based on the fourth presumptive connecting factor listed in Van Breda, namely that a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.3
The motion judge concluded that two relevant contracts grounded jurisdiction simpliciter: (1) the Centurion Cardmember Agreement between the Sinclairs and Amex Canada, and (2) a contract between Amex Canada and third-party supplier Carey International which facilitated the Sinclairs' transportation.4
The Italian defendants appealed.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario ("COA") unanimously5 allowed the appeal and stayed the action against the Italian defendants...
