In Stuart Budd & Sons Limited v. IFS Vehicle Distributors ULC, 2016 ONCA 977, the plaintiff/respondents were eight car dealerships. Four of the eight were located outside of Ontario. The defendant/appellants were: IFS Vehicle Distributors ULC (“IFS”), a British Columbia corporation; International Fleet Sales Inc. (“International”), a California corporation, an affiliate of IFS which supplied parts and accessories to IFS; and two individuals who were officers of both IFS and International, and who resided outside of Ontario.
The defendants brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the out-of-province plaintiffs could not be part of the action, and could not sue the defendants in Ontario. However, the motion judge found that the claim was presumptively connected to Ontario based on one of the factors set out by the Supreme Court in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda: that the defendant carried on business within the jurisdiction. The motion judge found that IFS carried on business in Ontario by:
- obtaining an extra-provincial license to permit it to carry on business in Ontario;
- negotiating three dealership agreements in Ontario;
- selling vehicles and, through International, parts in Ontario;
- directing Ontario dealers to make payment to a bank branch in Toronto, Ontario;
- maintained a lockbox for collecting cheques in Toronto, Ontario;
- using an Ontario address on invoices for vehicles and parts;
- maintaining a presence at an Ontario car dealership by:
- stating to the Ontario government that the dealership address was its “principal place of business” in Ontario;
- indicating in a disclosure document provided to some of the plaintiffs that the dealership address was “its premises in Ontario”;
- using the dealership address on the manufacturer’s certification provided to each of the plaintiffs.
The defendants appealed, citing other cases in which a more substantial physical connection was required to ground jurisdiction. Justice Lauwers, speaking for the Court, stated that a “more substantial presence” would have strengthened the motion judge’s determination, but disagreed that the factors found by the motion judge were insufficient to ground jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Our lawyers have experience with cross-border litigation and jurisdiction disputes. Please contact us to arrange for an initial consultation.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
