A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision means that you may not be able to recover in Ontario for injuries suffered while on vacation, even if the contract for that vacation - or part of it - was made in Ontario. In Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025, SCC 27, the Court dismissed the injured plaintiffs' appeal as against the Italian defendants for injuries sustained while travelling in a water taxi that crashed into a wooden structure in Venice, Italy. The decision provides guidance for injured plaintiffs on establishing the correct jurisdiction to bring a claim.
In a 5-4 split decision, the Supreme Court held that, while the plaintiffs established a presumptive connection to Ontario through a credit card agreement with Amex, the connection was not sufficient to allow the claim to proceed in Ontario as against the named Italian defendants. The Court emphasized that a contract formed in Ontario is not enough on its own to establish jurisdiction over foreign defendants when there is a lack of a real and substantial connection with respect to the dispute and the choice of forum.
When can an injured plaintiff bring a claim in Ontario?
In any claim for injuries that occurred outside of Ontario (or Canada), the court must be convinced that there are strong ties between Ontario, the claim itself, and the individuals involved in the claim. This is called "jurisdiction simpliciter", and it makes sure that court cases are not brought in a location that has little or no meaningful link with the claim or the individuals involved in the claim.
The two-stage approach established in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 ("Van Breda") has long been used by the courts to determine whether a matter being litigated has a real and substantial connection to the respective provincial jurisdiction that the claim is filed.
The first step is for the court to weigh the connecting factors to determine whether a real and substantial connection exists.
The second step, assuming a connecting factor has been established, is for the court to assume jurisdiction over the matter unless the defendant is able to rebut the connecting factor. The defendant can rebut this connection by showing the connecting factor is too weak to establish jurisdiction in the respective province.
In Van Breda, the plaintiff suffered injuries while at a resort in Cuba and tried to sue for those injuries in Ontario. The SCC determined that Ontario had jurisdiction in the case because the contract with the resort was entered into in Ontario, and the events that transpired stemmed from this contract. The resort failed to rebut this presumption.
The four factors that presumptively allow a court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute in tort cases are as follows:
- the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province;
- the defendant carries on business in the province;
- the tort was committed in the province; and
- a contract...
