Search

The common law of assumed jurisdiction in Canada now consists of judges interpreting and applying the presumptive connecting factors established for tort claims in Club Resorts Ltd. v Van Breda and...

This short article considers the central differences in the law on taking jurisdiction in civil and commercial disputes between those common law provinces that have implemented a statute on jurisdiction (British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan) and those common law provinces that rely on the common law (Alberta, Ontario and others). It focuses on the distinction between presence and ordinary residence, the role and analysis of presumptive connecting factors for taking jurisdiction, and issues related to immovable property.

(2007). Enforcement of Foreign Non-Monetary Judgments in Canada (And Beyond) Journal of Private International Law: Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 241-260.

Choice of law for unjust enrichment is impossible without a clear understanding of the law of unjust enrichment and the boundaries between it and other areas of law. This article is divided into three main sections. The first briefly outlines the current law on characterization, the process through which choice of law rules are selected and applied. The second proposes a definition of the law of unjust enrichment to be used in the characterization process. The third analyses the parameters of unjust enrichment, looking at the boundaries between it and contract, wrongs and property. Throughout the article, the focus is on English law, though some Canadian and Australian law is considered for comparative purposes. Choice of law rules must be formulated for the cause of action to reverse unjust enrichment. Those choice of law rules should focus on the three elements of the cause of action: the enrichment of the defendant, the expense of the claimant and the unjust factor justifying the reversal. The characterization process, by which the correct choice of law rule is selected, has to differentiate between unjust enrichment claims and other types of claim. It will do so according to the law of the forum. The scope of the law of unjust enrichment therefore must be as clear as possible, allowing claims to be characterized with a minimum of difficulty.

This chapter introduces the articles contained in Litigating Conspiracy: An Analysis of Competition Class Actions. The articles focus on the intersection of competition law and class actions. They consider the role that class actions can play in achieving an optimally competitive market for goods and services and in providing compensation for those who have suffered as a result of anticompetitive conduct. They examine key issues such as the appropriate test for class action certification and acceptable methodologies for calculating damages, and in doing so they bring to bear the views of legal academics, economists and experienced practicing lawyers. The first three articles examine the dominant rationale for allowing competition class actions and explain the appropriate relationship between public and private proceedings aimed at stopping anticompetitive conduct. They consider deterrence and ways to achieve an optimal level of enforcement of competition law. Six articles consider the test for certification of competition class actions, from both the American and Canadian perspective. One article addresses conflict of laws issues and another tackles conflict of interest concerns for counsel relating to fee arrangements. The final group of articles focuses on damages.