Indexed As: Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd. et al.

Transcription

1 Club Resorts Ltd. (appellant) v. Morgan Van Breda, Viktor Berg, Joan Van Breda, Tony Van Breda, Adam Van Breda and Tonnille Van Breda (respondents) and Tourism Industry Association of Ontario, Amnesty International, Canadian Centre for International Justice, Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights and Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (intervenors) (33692) Club Resorts Ltd. (appellant) v. Anna Charron, Estate Trustee of the Estate of Claude Charron, deceased, the said Anna Charron, personally, Jennifer Candace Charron, Stephanie Michelle Charron, Christopher Michael Charron, Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. and Hola Sun Holidays Limited (respondents) and Tourism Industry Association of Ontario, Amnesty International, Canadian Centre for International Justice, Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights and Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (intervenors) (33606; 2012 SCC 17; 2012 CSC 17) Indexed As: Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd. et al. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ. April 18, Summary: Claude and Anna Charron, a husband and wife, purchased a one week all-inclusive vacation from Hola Sun Holidays Ltd., an Ontario tour operator, through the Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. The resort, the Breezes Costa Verde (Cuba), was owned by Gaviota SA, a Cuban company, and managed by Club Resorts Ltd. (CRL), a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. CRL was part of the SuperClubs group of companies, along with Village Resorts International Ltd. (VRL). VRL owned trademarks, including "Breezes" and "SuperClubs" which were licensed to CRL for use in connection with vacation holidays. CRL also had an agreement with Hola Sun Holidays Ltd. to provide resort accommodation for inclusion in its package tours. This particular trip included scuba diving at the resort as part of the allinclusive package. Claude Charron died during a dive. His estate and family brought an action based on breach of contract and negligence and under the Family Law Act (Ont.), against a number of defendants, including CRL and VRL. CRL and VRL moved to dismiss the action against them on the basis that Ontario did not have jurisdiction or, alternatively, to stay the action on the grounds that Ontario was not the most appropriate forum. The Ontario Superior Court, in a judgment reported [2008] O.T.C. Uned. K67, applied the eight factor test from Muscutt v. Courcelles (Ont. C.A. 2002) to determine whether there was a real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario that could justify the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ontario courts. The motions judge determined that the defendant VRL was a mere licensor of trademarks and that there was no real and substantial connection. However, with respect to CRL, the motions judge found that Ontario did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The motions judge concluded that Ontario was clearly the most appropriate forum for the dispute. The judge dismissed the action against VRL, but refused to

2 dismiss or stay the action against CRL. Van Breda and Berg, common law spouses, booked a one week trip at SuperClubs Breezes Jibacoa resort (Cuba), through Denis, who operated a web based business under the name Sport au Soleil, from his Ottawa home. Denis had an arrangement with Club Resorts Ltd. (CRL), a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which managed Breezes resorts, to find sports instructors for CRL resorts, who would get accommodation in return for instruction services. Berg, a professional squash player, paid Denis a fee of US$200, to make the arrangements. Van Breda was seriously injured when sports equipment at the resort collapsed on her and she was rendered a paraplegic. Van Breda and Berg commenced an action for breach of contract and negligence, seeking personal injury damages, punitive damages and damages for loss of support, care, guidance and companionship pursuant to the Family Law Act (Ont.) against Denis, Sport du Soleil, SuperClubs International Ltd., CRL and Village Resorts Limited, both controlled by SuperClubs International. The owner of the resort was a Cuban corporation not named as a party to this action. All defendants moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction or to stay the action on grounds of forum non conveniens. The Ontario Superior Court, in a judgment reported [2008] O.T.C. Uned. D55, applied the eight factor test from Muscutt v. Courcelles (Ont. C.A. 2002) to determine whether there was a real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario that could justify the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ontario courts. The motions judge concluded that the balance favoured Ontario assuming jurisdiction against CRL given its connection with Ontario and the subject matter of the action, but that jurisdiction should not be assumed against the other two foreign defendants. The motions judge concluded that it could not be said that Cuba was clearly a more appropriate jurisdiction to try the action than Ontario and accordingly dismissed the defendants' forum non conveniens motion. Accordingly, the motions judge dismissed the action against VRL and SuperClubs International Ltd. but refused to dismiss or stay the action against CRL, Denis and Sport au Soleil. CRL filed appeals in both the Charron and Van Breda cases against the decisions refusing to dismiss the actions for want of jurisdiction or to stay the actions on grounds of forum non conveniens, raising the following issues: (1) Should the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction against outof-province defendants be retained, revised or abandoned in favour of some other test?; (2) Should Ontario assume jurisdiction under the appropriate test for assumed jurisdiction in the circumstances of these cases?; and (3) If there is jurisdiction, did the motions judges err in refusing to grant a stay on grounds of forum non conveniens? The appeals were heard together. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2010), 264 O.A.C. 1, dismissed the appeals. The court held that the Muscutt test should not be abandoned in favour of some other test; however, the court clarified and reformulated the Muscutt test. As to the Charron appeal, the court, applying the reformulated Muscutt test, agreed that Ontario should assume jurisdiction over CRL, and refused to interfere with the motions judge's refusal to stay the action against CRL on the ground of forum non conveniens. As to the Van Breda appeal, the court saw no basis to interfere with the motions judge's conclusion that there was a significant connection between the plaintiffs' claim and Ontario on the basis that the contract was entered

3 into in Ontario. Thus the Van Breda claim fell within the connection described in Civil Procedure Rule 17.02(f)(i) (i.e., a claim made with respect to a contract that was made in Ontario); therefore, a real and substantial connection between the claim and Ontario was presumed to exist. CRL was unable to rebut the presumption under the revised Muscutt test, thus the Ontario court could assume jurisdiction. The court also refused to interfere with the motions judge's refusal to stay the Van Breda action on the ground of forum non conveniens. CRL appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Applying the real and substantial connection test, the Ontario courts had jurisdiction over both claims. The court did not err in refusing to exercise their discretion to decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens. Conflict of Laws - Topic 8 General - Principle of comity - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the goal of the modern conflicts system is to facilitate exchanges and communications between people in different jurisdictions that have different legal systems. In this sense, it rests on the principle of comity. But comity itself is a very flexible concept. It cannot be understood as a set of well-defined rules, but rather as an attitude of respect for and deference to other states and, in the Canadian context, respect for and deference to other provinces and their courts... Comity cannot subsist in private international law without order, which requires a degree of stability and predictability in the development and application of the rules governing international or interprovincial relationships." - See paragraph 74. Conflict of Laws - Topic 603 Jurisdiction - General principles - Jurisdiction simpliciter - The Supreme Court of Canada distinguished between the real and substantial connection test as a constitutional principle and the same test as the organizing principle of the law of conflicts - The court stated that "the constitutionally imposed territorial limits on adjudicative jurisdiction are related to, but distinct from, the real and substantial connection test as expressed in conflicts rules. Conflicts rules include the rules that have been chosen for deciding when jurisdiction can be assumed over a given dispute, what law will govern a dispute or how an adjudicative decision from another jurisdiction will be recognized and enforced. The constitutional territorial limits, on the other hand, are concerned with setting the outer boundaries within which a variety of appropriate conflicts rules can be elaborated and applied. The purpose of the constitutional principle is to ensure that specific conflicts rules remain within these boundaries and, as a result, that they authorize the assumption of jurisdiction only in circumstances representing a legitimate exercise of the state's power of adjudication.... To be clear, however, the existence of a constitutional test aimed at maintaining the constitutional limits on the powers of a province's legislature and courts does not mean that the rules of private international law must be uniform across Canada. Legislatures and courts may adopt various solutions to meet the constitutional requirements and the objectives of efficiency and fairness that underlie our private international law system. Nor does this test's existence mean that the connections with the province must be the strongest one possible or that they must all point in the same direction." - See

4 paragraphs 31, 33, 34. Conflict of Laws - Topic 603 Jurisdiction - General principles - Jurisdiction simpliciter - [See fifth and sixth ]. Conflict of Laws - Topic 1661 Actions - General - Forum conveniens - General - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 7601]. Conflict of Laws - Topic 7601 Torts - Jurisdiction - Forum conveniens - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a court could not decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens unless the defendant invoked it - The court stated that "the defendant must identify another forum that has an appropriate connection under the conflicts rules and that should be allowed to dispose of the action. The defendant must show, using the same analytical approach the court followed to establish the existence of a real and substantial connection with the local forum, what connections this alternative forum has with the subject matter of the litigation. Finally, the party asking for a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens must demonstrate why the proposed alternative forum should be preferred and considered to be more appropriate.... the doctrine of forum non conveniens... is based on a recognition that a common law court retains a residual power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate, but limited, circumstances in order to assure fairness to the parties and the efficient resolution of the dispute.... the factors that a court may consider in deciding whether to apply forum non conveniens may vary depending on the context and might include the location of the parties and witnesses, the cost of transferring the case to another jurisdiction or of declining the stay, the impact of a transfer on the conduct of the litigation or on related or parallel proceedings, the possibility of conflicting judgments, problems related to the recognition and enforcement of judgments, and the relative strengths of the connections of the two parties." - The court also discussed the loss of juridical advantage as a factor to be considered - See paragraphs 101 to 112. Conflict of Laws - Topic 7602 Torts - Jurisdiction - Tort occurring outside jurisdiction - [See fifth and sixth Conflict of Laws - Topic 7605]. Torts - Jurisdiction - Real and substantial connection - At issue was the rules and principles governing the assumption of jurisdiction by the courts of Ontario over tort cases in which claimants sued in Ontario, but at least some of the events giving rise to the claim occurred outside of Ontario or Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "in recent years, the preferred approach in Canada has been to rely on a set of specific factors, which are given presumptive effect, as opposed to a regime based on an exercise of almost pure and individualized judicial discretion.... identifying a set of relevant presumptive connecting factors and determining their legal nature and

5 effect will bring greater clarity and predictability to the analysis of the problems of assumption of jurisdiction, while at the same time ensuring consistency with the objectives of fairness and efficiency that underlie this branch of the law. The presumption with respect to a factor will not be irrebuttable, however. The defendant might argue that a given connection is inappropriate in the circumstances of the case. In such a case, the defendant will bear the burden of negating the presumptive effect of the listed or new factor and convincing the court that the proposed assumption of jurisdiction would be inappropriate. If no presumptive connecting factor, either listed or new, applies in the circumstances of a case or if the presumption of jurisdiction resulting from such a factor is properly rebutted, the court will lack jurisdiction on the basis of the common law real and substantial connection test." - See paragraphs 78, 81. Torts - Jurisdiction - Real and substantial connection - Some of the events related to a tort action commenced in Ontario occurred outside of Canada - At issue was whether, based on the real and substantial connection test, the Ontario court had jurisdiction over the tort claim, and what constituted the presumptive connecting factors to be considered - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the presence of the plaintiff in the jurisdiction is not, on its own, a sufficient connecting factor.... On the other hand, a defendant may always be sued in a court of the jurisdiction in which he or she is domiciled or resident... Carrying on business in the jurisdiction may also be considered an appropriate connecting factor.... Active advertising in the jurisdiction or, for example, the fact that a Web site can be accessed from the jurisdiction would not suffice to establish that the defendant is carrying on business there. The notion of carrying on business requires some form of actual, not only virtual, presence in the jurisdiction, such as maintaining an office there or regularly visiting the territory of the particular jurisdiction.... The situs of the tort is clearly an appropriate connecting factor... The use of damage sustained as a connecting factor may raise difficult issues. For torts like defamation, sustaining damage completes the commission of the tort and often tends to locate the tort in the jurisdiction where the damage is sustained. In other cases, the situation is less clear.... As a result, presumptive effect cannot be accorded to this connecting factor. To recap, in a case concerning a tort, the following factors are presumptive connecting factors that, prima facie, entitle a court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute: (a) the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province; (b) the defendant carries on business in the province; (c) the tort was committed in the province; and (d) a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province." - See paragraphs 82 to 90. Torts - Jurisdiction - Real and substantial connection - Some of the events related to a tort action commenced in Ontario occurred outside of Canada - At issue was whether, based on the real and substantial connection test, the Ontario court had jurisdiction over the tort claim, and what constituted the presumptive connecting factors to be considered - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the list of presumptive factors is not closed. Over time, courts may identify new factors which also presumptively entitle a court to assume jurisdiction. In identifying new presumptive factors, a court

6 should look to connections that give rise to a relationship with the forum that is similar in nature to the ones which result from the listed factors. Relevant considerations include: (a) Similarity of the connecting factor with the recognized presumptive connecting factors; (b) Treatment of the connecting factor in the case law; (c) Treatment of the connecting factor in statute law; and (d) Treatment of the connecting factor in the private international law of other legal systems with a shared commitment to order, fairness and comity." - See paragraph 91. Torts - Jurisdiction - Real and substantial connection - Some of the events related to a tort action commenced in Ontario occurred outside of Canada - At issue was whether, based on the real and substantial connection test, the Ontario court had jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "if, however, no recognized presumptive connecting factor - whether listed or new - applies, the effect of the common law real and substantial connection test is that the court should not assume jurisdiction. In particular, a court should not assume jurisdiction on the basis of the combined effect of a number of non-presumptive connecting factors. That would open the door to assumptions of jurisdiction based largely on the case-by-case exercise of discretion and would undermine the objectives of order, certainty and predictability that lie at the heart of a fair and principled private international law system." - See paragraph 93. Torts - Jurisdiction - Real and substantial connection - Common law spouses, Van Breda and Berg (a professional squash player), booked a one week trip at a SuperClubs Breezes resort (Cuba), through Denis, who operated a web based business from his Ottawa home - Denis had an arrangement with Club Resorts Ltd. (CRL), a Cayman Islands company, which managed Breezes resorts, to find sports instructors who would get accommodation at resorts in return for instruction services - At the resort, Van Breda was seriously injured (i.e., rendered a paraplegic when sports equipment collapsed) - Van Breda and Berg sued CRL et al. (contract and tort) - A motions judge refused to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction or to stay the action - CRL appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the Ontario court had jurisdiction because of a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the subject matter of the litigation and that the motions judge did not err in declining jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed CRL's appeal, stating that "the existence of a contract made in Ontario that is connected with the ligitation is a presumptive connecting factor that, on its face, entitles the courts of Ontario to assume jurisdiction in this case.... [CRL] has failed to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction that arises where this factor applies. On this basis, I would uphold the Court of Appeal's conclusion that there was a sufficient connection between the Ontario court and the subject matter of the litigation." - The Ontario court did not err in refusing to decline jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens, where CRL failed to discharge the burden of showing that a Cuban court would clearly be a more appropriate forum - See paragraphs 114 to 118.

7 Torts - Jurisdiction - Real and substantial connection - A husband and wife (the Charrons), purchased an all-inclusive vacation, which included scuba diving, from an Ontario tour operator (Hola) - The Cuban owned resort (Breezes) was managed by Club Resorts Ltd. (CRL), a Cayman Islands company - CRL had an agreement with Hola to provide resort accommodation for inclusion in its package tours - The husband died during a dive - His estate and family sued CRL et al. (Family Law Act (Ont.) claims and claims for damages for tort or breach of contract committed elsewhere) - A motions judge refused to dismiss the action against CRL for want of jurisdiction in Ontario or to stay the action - CRL appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction based on a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the subject matter of the litigation and that the motions judge did not err in refusing to decline jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed CRL's appeal, stating that "[CRL] was carrying on business in Ontario. [CRL's] commercial activities in Ontario went well beyond promoting a brand and advertising. Its representatives were in the province on a regular basis. It benefited from the physical presence of an office in Ontario. Most significantly, on cross-examination [CRL's] witness admitted that it was in the business of carrying out activities in Canada.... the [Charrons] have established that a presumptive connecting factor applies and that the Ontario court is prima facie entitled to assume jurisdiction. [CRL] has not rebutted the presumption of jurisdiction that arises from this presumptive connecting factor.... I find that the Ontario court has jurisdiction on the basis of the real and substantial connection test." - The motions judge did not err in refusing to decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens, as CRL "failed to discharge its burden of showing that a Cuban court would clearly be a more appropriate forum in the circumstances of this case." - See paragraphs 119 to 124. Cases Noticed: Muscutt et al. v. Courcelles et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 1; 60 O.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.), consd. [para. 9]. Black v. Breeden et al. (2012), 429 N.R. 192; 2012 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 13]. Banro Corp. v. Editions Ecosociété Inc. et al. (2012), 429 N.R. 293; 2012 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 13]. British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473; 339 N.R. 129; 218 B.C.A.C. 1; 359 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 49, refd to. [para. 21]. Castillo v. Castillo, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 870; 343 N.R. 144; 376 A.R. 224; 360 W.A.C. 224; 2005 SCC 83, refd to. [para. 21]. Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 306 N.R. 201; 176 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 21]. Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 393; 1 N.R. 122, refd to. [para. 24]. Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 24]. Hunt v. Lac d'amiante du Québec ltée et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; 161 N.R. 81; 37 B.C.A.C. 161; 60 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24]. Beals v. Saldanha et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416; 314 N.R. 209; 182 O.A.C. 201; 2003

8 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 28]. Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 37]. McLean v. Pettigrew, [1945] S.C.R. 62, refd to. [para. 37]. Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp. et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 205; 297 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 39]. Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 47]. Lemmex v. Bernard et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 31; 60 O.R.(3d) 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50]. Gajraj et al. v. DeBernardo et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 60; 60 O.R.(3d) 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50]. Sinclair et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 54; 60 O.R. (3d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50]. Leufkens v. Alba Tours International Inc. et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 43; 60 O.R.(3d) 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50]. Coutu v. Gauthier Estate (2006), 296 N.B.R.(2d) 34; 769 A.P.R. 34; 2006 NBCA 16, refd to. [para. 51]. Fewer v. Ellis (2011), 305 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 39; 948 A.P.R. 39; 2011 NLCA 17, refd to. [para. 51]. R. v. Hape (L.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; 363 N.R. 1; 227 O.A.C. 191; 2007 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 74]. Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd., [1987] 1 A.C. 460; 71 N.R. 372 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 104]. Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Cominco Ltd. et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 321; 384 N.R. 351; 266 B.C.A.C. 32; 449 W.A.C. 32; 2009 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 106]. Teck Cominco Metals v. Lloyd's Underwriters - see Lombard General Insurance Co. of Canada v. Cominco Ltd. et al. Oppenheim forfait GMBH v. Lexus maritime inc., 1998 CanLII (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 107]. Authors and Works Noticed: Blom, Joost, and Edinger, Elizabeth, The Chimera of the Real and Substantial Connection Test (2005), 38 U.B.C.L. Rev. 373, generally [para. 30]. Briggs, Adrian, The Conflict of Laws (2nd Ed. 2008), pp. 2 to 3 [para. 14]. Brun, Henri, Tremblay, Guy and Brouillet, Eugénie, Droit constituionnel (5e éd. 2008), p. 569 [para. 21]. Castel, Jean-Gabriel, The Uncertainty Factor in Canadian Private International Law (2007), 52 McGill L.J. 555, generally [para. 14]. Emanuelli, Claude, Droit international privé québécois (3e éd. 2011), p. 38 [para. 27]. Goldstein, Gérald, and Groffier, Ethel, Dorit international privé, t. I, Théorie générale (1998), p. 47 [para. 22]. Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 2007), vol. 1, pp. 364, 365, 376, 377 [para. 21]. Manitoba, Law Reform Commission, Report No. 119, Private International Law

9 (2009), p. 2 [para. 14]. Monestier, Tanya, A "Real and Substantial" Improvement? Van Breda Reformulates the Law of Jurisdiction in Ontario, in Annual Review of Civil Litigation (2010), pp. 204 to 207 [para. 78]. Perell, Paul M., and Morden, John W., The Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario (2010), p. 121 [para. 43]. Pitel, Stephen G.A., and Rafferty, Nicholas S., Conflict of Laws (2010), p. 1 [para. 15]. Talpis, Jeffrey A., "If I am from Grand-Mère, Why Am I Being Sued in Texas?" Responding to Inappropriate Foreign Jurisdiction in Quebec-United States Crossborder Litigation (2001), pp. 44 to 45 [para. 107]. Walker, Janet, "Reforming the Law of Crossborder Litigation: Judicial Jurisdiction", Consultation Paper, Law Commission of Ontario (March 2009) (online: pp. 19 to 20 [para. 80]. Yntema, Hessel E., The Objectives of Private International Law (1957), 35 Can. Bar Rev. 721, p. 741 [para. 74]. Counsel: John A. Olah, for the appellant (33692); Chris G. Paliare, Robert A. Centa and Tina H. Lie, for the respondents, Morgan Van Breda et al. (33692); Peter J. Pliszka and Robin P. Roddey, for the appellant (33606); Jerome R. Morse, Lori Stoltz and John J. Adair, for the respondents, Anna Charron et al. (33606); Howard B. Borlack, Lisa La Horey and Sabine Kharabian, for the respondent, Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. (33606); Catherine M. Buie, for the respondent, Hola Sun Holidays Ltd. (33606); John Terry and Jana Stettner, for the intervenor, Tourism Industry Association of Ontario (33606 and 33692); François Larocque, Michael Sobkin, Mark C. Power and Lauren J. Wihak, for the intervenors, Amnesty International, Canadian Centre for International Justice and Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (33606 and 33692); Allan Rouben, for the intervenor, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (33606 and 33692). Solicitors of Record: Beard Winter, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant (33692); Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, Morgan Van Breda et al. (33692); Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant (33606); Adair Morse, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, Anna Charron et al. (33606); McCague Peacock Borlack McInnis & Lloyd, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. (33606); Buie Cohen, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Hola Sun Holidays Ltd. (33606); Torys, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Tourism Industry Association of Ontario

10 (33606 and 33692); Heenan Blaikie, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenors, Amnesty International, Canadian Centre for International Justice and Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (33606 and 33692); Allan Rouben, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (33606 and 33692). This appeal was heard on March 21, 2011, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On April 18, 2012, LeBel, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court. Editor's Note: Binnie and Charron, JJ., did not participate in the judgment. Editor: Steven C. McMinniman/clh Appeal dismissed.