Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo: Supreme Court Clarifies Ontario’s Jurisdiction in Foreign Tort Cases
In Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo (2025 SCC 27), the Supreme Court of Canada recently provided updated guidance on the question of whether Ontario is the proper jurisdiction for a party to pursue litigation.
Mr. Sinclair was an Ontario resident who used Amex’s concierge service to book a European vacation. While visiting Italy, Mr. Sinclair booked a water-taxi ride from the Venice airport to his hotel using Amex’s concierge service. Italian companies ultimately provided the water-taxi. Unfortunately, the water taxi crashed with Mr. Sinclair onboard, and he was seriously injured. Upon his return to Canada, Mr. Sinclair sued multiple parties in Ontario in negligence and claiming vicarious liability. He sued Amex Canada, the Italian companies who provided the water-taxi, and intermediaries who handled the booking.
The Defendants challenged the Court’s jurisdiction on a motion. The key issue was whether Ontario courts can assume jurisdiction over Italian companies for a tort (negligence) which occurred abroad, based on a contract which was formed in Ontario (the Amex credit card agreement) and other alleged connections to Ontario.
The leading jurisprudence prior to Sinclair was Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda (2012 SCC 17) which applied the “real and substantial connection” test to determine whether an Ontario Court should assume jurisdiction. The idea behind the test is to prevent jurisdictional overreach, and to ensure that there is a “real and substantial connection” between Ontario and the dispute at issue. The Van Breda test can be summarized as follows:
- The plaintiff must show a “presumptive connecting factor” linking the dispute to the province where the plaintiff wishes to litigate (e.g., defendant is domiciled or resident there, defendant conducts business there, contract was formed there, or tort was committed there); and,
- If a connecting factor is shown, then the defendant may rebut the presumption by showing the connection is weak or the forum is otherwise inappropriate.
In Sinclair, the Supreme Court decided that Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction over the Italian companies. Even though the contract between Mr. Sinclair and Amex was based in Ontario (a presumptive connecting factor), the presumption of jurisdiction was rebutted because:
- The tort occurred in Italy (the boat accident);
- The Italian companies were not parties to the Ontario contract and had minimal, if any, ties to Ontario; and,
- The connection between the dispute and Ontario was too weak.
Building on the jurisprudence from Van Breda, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sinclair clarified that when there are multiple defendants, the “real and substantial connection” analysis must be performed separately for each defendant. A plaintiff cannot simply use one defendant’s connection to the jurisdiction to pull all others into the jurisdiction.
The Sinclair decision is important because it reinforces the territorial jurisdiction and offers clarity on the proper approach to multi-party litigation. The decision provides for a common sense approach which promotes certainty and inhibits forum shopping.
The Sinclair decision also provides clarification on the fourth presumptive factor from Van Breda — “a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province.” While Mr. Sinclair’s credit card contract with Amex was technically formed in Ontario, that alone was insufficient. The Supreme Court clarified that the contract in question must be directly relevant to the specific dispute involving a particular defendant. A broader, more tangentially related general service contract was insufficient on its own to bring the Italian companies under Ontario’s jurisdiction, particularly given that they were not party to the contract between Mr. Sinclair and Amex.
For plaintiffs it is important to seek legal advice before commencing litigation. Ontario-based lawyers are unlikely to be aware of limitation periods and other important factors related to starting litigation in other jurisdictions. Consulting a lawyer in Ontario can help plaintiffs determine which jurisdiction is appropriate, but ultimately a referral to a foreign licensed lawyer may be required.
For defendants, it is important to consider at the outset of litigation whether Ontario is the appropriate jurisdiction. If it is not, the lawyers at Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall can provide advice on motions or other options to strike the litigation.
If you are facing a jurisdictional challenge or defending a multi-party claim, the litigation team at Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall can help. Our lawyers regularly act in matters involving complex cross-border disputes, multi-defendant actions, and motions to challenge jurisdiction. We provide strategic, practical advice from the earliest stages of a claim, helping clients assess risk, navigate procedural steps, and determine the most effective path forward. With extensive experience before all levels of court in Ontario, our team is equipped to protect your interests and guide you through even the most challenging litigation.