Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of rights — Private international law — Courts — Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens — Torts — Whether the lower courts correctly held that the Ontario courts were without jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s action and, alternatively, that that Ontario is forum non conveniens — Whether the applicants are entitled as of right for the Ontario courts to assume jurisdiction over the tort at issue — Whether there is a constitutional minimum for discharge of the evidentiary burden in forum non conveniens analysis — Whether the rule of law is violated by the wide ambit of discretion in the endorsement of the Court of Appeal.

The applicants commenced an action in St. Kitts against the respondent CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (“FirstCaribbean”) in respect of an equitable mortgage agreement. The agreement was entered into to finance the construction of a house in St. Kitts. The registered owner of the property, applicant Bronwen Glasford, was born in St. Kitts and resides there or in Barbados, where she operates a private medical practice. The applicant Kareem (the second borrower), Ms. Glasford’s son, was born in and resides in Canada. FirstCaribbean is incorporated under the laws of Barbados and registered to do business in St. Kitts.

In their St. Kitts action, the applicants claimed fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, conspiracy, procuring breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence. FirstCaribbean also commenced an action in St. Kitts, initiating mortgage realization proceedings and seizing the property due to an alleged default by the applicants. When the applicants commenced an action in Ontario (alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of collateral warranty, and breach of fiduciary duty), the respondents brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action. The applicants submit that the Ontario courts have jurisdiction because, inter alia, Mr. Vinton signed the mortgage documentation and received and acted upon alleged misrepresentations in Ontario. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicants’ action as being a matter outside of the jurisdiction of the courts of Ontario and, alternatively, by finding Ontario a forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.