References: [1993] 1 SCR 897, (1993) 102 DLR (4th) 96, [1993] 3 WWR 441, 77 BCLR (2d) 62, 150 NR 321, 23 BCAC 1, [1993] CarswellBC 47, JE 93-674
Links: Canlii
Coram: La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ
Supreme Court of Canada – Courts – Appropriate forum – Action commenced in U.S. courts – Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada – Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought – Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts – Principles governing the determination of appropriate forum and governing comity between courts – Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Prerogative writs – Injunctions – Appropriate forum for bringing action – Action commenced in U.S. courts – Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada – Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought – Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts – Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Conflict of laws – Courts – Action commenced in U.S. courts – Plaintiffs largely resident in Canada – Most of corporate defendants with some connection with state where action brought – Anti-suit injunction sought in Canadian courts to prevent action in U.S. courts – Principles governing the determination of appropriate forum and governing comity between courts – Whether or not an injunction appropriate.
Sopinka J discussed the importance of comity considerations in anti-suit injunction applications and held: ‘the domestic court as a matter of comity must take cognisance of the fact that the foreign court has assumed jurisdiction. If, applying the principles relating to forum non conveniens . . the foreign court could reasonably have concluded that there was no alternative forum that was clearly More appropriate, the domestic court should respect that decision and the application [for an anti-suit injunction] should be dismissed.’
This case is cited by:
- Approved – Airbus Industrie G I E -v- Patel and Others HL (Times 06-Apr-98, House of Lords, Gazette 07-May-98, Bailii, [1998] UKHL 12, [1999] 1 AC 119, [1998] 2 All ER 257, [1998] 2 WLR 686)
An Indian Airlines Airbus A-320 crashed at Bangalore airport after an internal Indian flight. The plaintiff passengers lived in England. Proceedings began in Bangalore against the airline and the airport authority. The natural forum was the . . - Cited – OT Africa Line Ltd -v- Magic Sportswear Corporation and others CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 710, Times 21-Jun-05)
The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 10-Nov-15 Ref: 228197