Posts Tagged Ontario
When I reported the first salvos in Goldhar v Haaretz I flagged that the follow-up to the case would provide for good comparative conflicts materials. I have summarised the facts in that original article. The Ontario Court of Appeal in majority dismissed Haaretz’ appeal in 2016, 2016 ONCA 515. In Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28, the Canadian Supreme Court has now held in majority for a stay on forum non conveniens grounds. Both the lead opinion, the supporting opinions and the dissents include interesting arguments on forum non conveniens. Many of these, as Stephen Pitel notes, include analysis of the relevance of obstacles in enforcement proceedings.
If ever I were to get round to compiling that published reader on comparative conflicts, this case would certainly feature.
Have a good start to the working-week (lest it started yesterday in which case: bonne continuation).
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 18.104.22.168.
Thank you Dentons for flagging 2016 ONCA 836 Cook v 1293037 Alberta Ltd, on the application of the forum of necessity or forum necessitatis doctrine in the Canadian courts. A doctrine which in some way or another allows a court to be used as court of last resort, should no other court be reasonably be available to plaintiff. Those States which do have it (Belgium, for instance: In Article 11 of its Statute; readers of the blog will also remember the EC suggested its introduction in the Brussels I Recast (Article 26 of COM(2010)748), but failed) all insist the jurisdictional trigger can only be exercised in the most exceptional of circumstance.
Cook v 129…Alberta is a good illustration of this exceptional nature. The Canadian Supreme Court set out the conditions in 2012 SCC 17 Van Breda v Village Resorts Ltd. Appellants had made a tactical decision not to bring their action in Alberta, the natural forum of the case. The limitation period for bringing the action in Alberta has now expired. They should under the circumstance not be allowed to bring the action in Ontario.
Does someone somewhere have an (undoubtedly slim) catalogue of those forum necessitatis actions which did succeed?
(Handbook of) European private international law, 2nd ed.2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.4 (p.68.)
Thank you Jonathan Cocker for flagging Ontario’s stakeholder consultation on renewable fuel standards, aka biofuels. Current thinking, outlined in the discussion paper, is to make the standards ‘performance based’: ie without pushing one or rather additive and exclusively focus on achieved (documented) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Biofuels are known to create international trade tension. Argentina and the EU are still formally in consultation over the EU’s approach. Various WTO dispute settlement concerns anti-dumping duties on biofuels. Finally one or two elements of WTO dispute settlement on support for renewable energy touch upon fuel standards.
With all that in mind one particular element of the Ontario regime caught my attention: the intention to regulate GHG emissions ‘well to wheel’: ie ‘to assess emissions performance across the fuel’s full well-to-wheel lifecycle, from extraction to processing, distribution and end-use combustion.’(p.6). Canada does that already for diesel, with its 2014 greener diesel Regulation, employing what is known as the ‘GHGenius’ model.
What I have not been able to gauge from my admittedly limited research into that model: does it at all and if so how, apply to particularly extraction outside of Canada indeed outside Ontario? For the EU, much of the biofuel production (let alone biofuel imports) at some point or another involves extra-EU elements. How does a well to wheel method in such case work under WTO rules?
Happy days!: ‘closest and most real connection’ for identifying lex contractus. Ontario CA in Lilydale v Meyn.
Lilydale v Meyn at the Ontario Court of Appeal (held April 2015 but only reaching me now – thank you to Michael Shafler and colleagues for flagging) is a useful reminder of the common law approach to determining lex contractus in the absence of choice of law. (Here of course an inter-State conflicts issue between Ontario and Alberta). Laskin JA refers in support to english precedent, summarised in quoted passage of Cheshire’s Private International Law:
The court must take into account, for instance, the following matters: the domicil and even the residence of the parties; the national character of a corporation and the place where its principal place of business is situated; the place where the contract is made and the place where it is to be performed; the style in which the contract is drafted, as, for instance, whether the language is appropriate to one system of law, but inappropriate to another; the fact that a certain stipulation is valid under one law but void under another … the economic connexion of the contract with some other transaction … the nature of the subject matter or its situs; the head office of an insurance company, whose activities range over many countries; and, in short, any other fact which serves to localize the contract.
The motion judge’s findings on the relevant criteria were held to be reasonable, as was her overall conclusion that the closest and most real connection to the contract was Ontario.
The case is an interesting reminder of what in the Rome I Regulation is now the final resort, should none of the relevant presumptions in Article 4 apply.
An interesting point in the judgment is the main reason why parties prefer one law over the other: at 3: ‘The issue is important because Alberta and Ontario have different ultimate limitation periods. Even taking into account discoverability, Alberta’s ultimate limitation period is 10 years; Ontario’s is 15 years. The parties agreed that Lilydale’s cause of action arose no later than August 31, 1994. Therefore, as Lilydale did not sue until January 2006, if Alberta law applied, its action was statute-barred; if Ontario law applied, it was not.’
Aren’t statutes of limitation under Canadian conflict of laws, covered by lex fori, as procedural issues, and not, as is seemingly accepted here, lex causae?
The exam season is over, otherwise Goldhar v Haaretz would have made a great case for comparative analysis. Instead this can now feed into class materials. This is an interlocutory judgment on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and /or abuse of process. Plaintiff lives in Toronto. He is a billionaire who owns i.a. Maccabi Tel Aviv. (Chelsea’s first opponent in the Champions League. But that’s obviously an aside). Mr Goldhar visits Israel about five or six times per year. Defendant is Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd. which publishes Haaretz, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper (market share about 7%). It also publishes an English language print edition. Haaretz is published online in both English and Hebrew.
Haaretz published a very critical article on Mr Goldhar in November 2011. The print version was not published in Canada, in either English or Hebrew. However, Haaretz was made available internationally on its website in Israel in both Hebrew and English – the judgment does not say so specifically however I assume this was both on the .co.il site – even if currently Haaretz’ EN site is available via a .com site.
Information provided by the defendants reveals that there were 216 unique visits to the Article in its online form in Canada. Testimony further showed that indeed a number of people in Canada read the article – this was sufficient for Faieta J to hold that a tort was committed in Ontario and thus a presumptive connecting factor exists. Presumably this means that the court (and /or Canadian /Ontario law with which I am not au fait) view the locus delicti commissi (‘a tort was committed’) as Canada – a conclusion not all that obvious to me (I would have assumed Canada is locus damni only). Per precedent, the absence of a substantial publication of the defamatory material in Canada was not found to be enough to rebut the finding of jurisdiction.
Forum non conveniens was dismissed on a variety of grounds, including applicable law being the law of Ontario (again Ontario is identified as the locus delicti commissi: at 48). Plaintiff will have to cover costs for the appearance, in Canada, of defendants’ witnesses. Importantly, plaintiff will also only be able to seek damages for reputational harm suffered within Canada.
I can see this case (and the follow-up in substance) doing the rounds of conflicts classes.
Just before the Christmas break, a WTO Panel ruled at the request of Japan and the EU that Ontario’s feed-in tariff program is illegal under the GATT and TRIMs agreement. Feed-in tariff programs are a popular means to boost renewable energy. Typically, they imply that producers of renewable energy are nurtured through preferential, long-term and advantageous electricity purchase contracts (either through obliging private electricity distributors to enter into such contracts, such as in the infamous European PreussenElektra case, or such as in the case of Ontario’s law, through employment of a Government Agency which enters into these contracts). Governments are often tempted to throw ‘local content requirements’ into the mix: in the case of Ontario, domestic content requirements must be complied with in the design and construction of the relevant electricity generation facilities utilizing solar photovoltaic and wind power technology in order to qualify for guaranteed electricity prices offered under the FIT Program.
The Panel rejected the EU’s claim with respect to Subsidies, however it did accept that the regime infringed GATT Article III, as well as the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures. The former to me was no great surprise. Infant industry arguments are often made with respect to renewable energy however these do not in my view carry much weight with respect to either solar, wind or hydropower. The finding on TRIMS is encouraging: it shows that the Agreement (I sometimes dub it a mini-MAI) does have some bite.
The EU has had internal issues with feed-in tariffs and the like (see e.g. my paper here on (di)similarities between EU and WTO law on the matter), and (update 5 May 2015) in the UK the Courts are considering the extent to which Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Conention on Human rights (‘A1P1’), which protects property, shields investors in solar energy from changes in feed-in tariffs.