Uniform Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act
Class Comments
Sets down jurisdictional rules for Can Courts.
Uniform Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act obliges Can court to give affect to any judgment obtained to any province part of the UCJPTA
Provides mechanism for transfering proceedings from one court to another court in another province. Inspired by US Act to the same effect.
Order and fairness another important aspect to claiming jurisdiction on someone based on simple physical presence.
This rule substitutes more lax rules and bases it on ordinary residence.
In broad structure the uniform act does follow the structure of the Civl Code and divides structure into three basis.
(1) defendant connection sets it as ordinary residence
(2) consent-based jurisdiction voluntary or prior agrmt
(3) subject matter connection this is broadly compatible w/ CCQ which like-wise looks at subject matter connection as alternative to defendant or consent based jurisdiction.
Section 3 has 5 bases of jur’n. First three fall under rubric of consent based jur’n. Fourth is the ordinary resident defendant connection. Fifth is the subject-matter connection.
This basis of consent based jur’n is in its substantive effect any diff from the CCQ in art 3148. But why come up w/ 3 rules instead of 2 as in CCQ? Why insist on this diff in drafting technique? CML seems to need more precise definition. There’s CML psychological trait that everything has to be stipulated, unlike CVL where there’s more confidence in drafting of general principles.
Ordinary residence rule is of some interest bc of diff in which ordinary residence has been defined. Section 7 defines it for corporations. In Qc it’s habitual residence. What gives?
Section says that corporation is ord res only if corporation has a registered office in that prov, pursuant to law it has registered address in that prov, it has place of business in that prov or its central management is exercised in that prov. So there are 4 ways in which you can become ordinary resident as corporation. So, any of Can banks is rodinary res in all provinces! Diff w/ CCQ is that it says it’s domicile, defined in art. 75 by reference to registry office, unless action (subject matter) relates to a specific branch. So CCQ is more principled
For indiv Uniform act is more restrictive towards ordinary residence, whereas for corporation it’s more expansive.
Article 3: sets subject matter connection as basis for jurisdiction. In Article 10 says theres presumption that real and substantial connection exist if the ennumerated conditions are met. But not a conclusive/exhaustive pressumption.
Act has chosen general standard with some rebuttal guides for the purposes what constitutes subject matter relation.
Look at connections in section 10 for personal actions of patrimonial nature. For contractual obs if substantial portion of K is meant to be performed in the prov. Compare to CCQ 3148 where it is just one of K’al obligations and here it is ‘to a substantial extent’!
In tort, however, only pressumption that is R&S is where action concerns tort committed in the jurisdiction, whereas in CCQ fault or damage suffered in Qc is enough.
If q’n is jurisdiction, any place that has substantial connection by way of damage or by way of fault, the courts there can exercise jurisdiction.
If we look at bare wording of s.10, it suggests that there can only be one jurisdcition for tort in subject matter. Whereas Qc allows for choice by virtue of theory of damage or fault.
Consumer contracts and employment contracts: no where in Uniform Act that has basis for jurisdiction like in CCQ. But in s.10(3) we see pressumption that R&S connection exists if contract is for purchase of prop, services or both and for personal purposes (ie consumer) that result in profit in prov by seller. So it’s consumer contract that is result of seller outside prov in side prov then courts have jurisdiction.
This is aimed at same objectives as the consumer contract rule in the CCQ but crafted differently saying that if it’s consumer contract the rules of r&S connection are enough if there’s solicitation.
Think: Would Spar be decided differently under Uniform Act than under CCQ bc of R&S test?
R&S test applies not just to actions of patrimonial nature but also extends to family actions – however, commentary to s. 10 says that territorial competence for family law is generally governed by special statutes and these statutes will normally have priority over the general rules in Uniform Act.
New aspect of act is that one of the express grounds of jurisdiction is collection of tax. So it’s subject matter of its own to owe money to govt, so where tax money is owed has jurisdiciton. (ie absence of person from a given jur’n does not make them immune from litigation to recover the $$ owed).Not quite as dramatic as one would initially think bc juri’n necessarily depends on connection to the country. This assumes connection bt indiv and territory
Whereas CCQ allows court to decline jurisdiction for perding litigation elsewhere, there is nothing in the statute that allows this. This reflects diff btw CML + Europe. In CML the fact that there is pending litigation is not treated as anything special. It still looks at forum non conveniens and asks if the first forum where case is being tried is more appropriate forum. If no, it has no problem going ahead.
Alternatively, court can find one of actions as vexatious.
Qc rule minimizes potential for conflicting judgments, on the other hand it makes it hard on someone where in first forum there is no substantial cause of action.
There is no 2 separate tests in CML like there is in Qc w/ jurisdiction simpliciter and then forum non conveniens. CML has one test for both situations.
What makes little sense is that you can have one action go one way, second in the other and have them wipe each other out and, bc of Uniform Act, you have to make both enforceable.
CML attitutde is that they wont stop exercising jur’n bc someone else has jur’n too. It’s a big Who cares??
