|
''Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda'', 2012 SCC 17, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that has brought greater certainty to the question of a real and substantial connection in the assumption of civil jurisdiction by Canadian courts in matters concerning the conflict of laws. ==The facts== In separate cases, two individuals were injured while on vacation outside of Canada. Van Breda suffered catastrophic injuries on a beach in Cuba, and Charron died while scuba diving there. Actions were brought in Ontario against a number of parties, including Club Resorts Ltd., a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, that managed the two hotels where the accidents occurred. Club Resorts sought to block those proceedings, arguing that: : * the Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, : * a Cuban court would be a more appropriate forum on the basis of the doctrine of ''forum non conveniens''. In both cases, the judges at first instance held that Ontario courts did have jurisdiction, and that an Ontario court was the more appropriate forum. The two cases were heard together by the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the appeals were both dismissed. Both were subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|