{"id":8005,"date":"2025-12-04T07:02:53","date_gmt":"2025-12-04T12:02:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/perlaw.ca\/?p=8005"},"modified":"2025-12-03T19:04:58","modified_gmt":"2025-12-04T00:04:58","slug":"sinclair-v-venezia-turismo-supreme-court-clarifies-ontarios-jurisdiction-in-foreign-tort-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/perlaw.ca\/fr\/2025\/12\/04\/sinclair-v-venezia-turismo-supreme-court-clarifies-ontarios-jurisdiction-in-foreign-tort-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo: Supreme Court Clarifies Ontario\u2019s Jurisdiction in Foreign Tort Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

In <\/span>Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo<\/i><\/b> (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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Sinclair was an Ontario resident who used Amex\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Defendants challenged the Court\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The leading jurisprudence prior to <\/span>Sinclair <\/span><\/i>was<\/span> Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda<\/i><\/b> (2012 SCC 17) which applied the \u201creal and substantial connection\u201d 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 \u201creal and substantial connection\u201d between Ontario and the dispute at issue. The <\/span>Van Breda <\/span><\/i>test can be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The plaintiff must show a \u201cpresumptive connecting factor\u201d 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,<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In <\/span>Sinclair<\/span><\/i>, 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:<\/span><\/p>\n