Digests

Federal Court Jurisdiction

Appeal of Prothonotary’s decision striking plaintiff’s statement against foreign defendant Mitsubishi America on ground Court lacking jurisdiction—Plaintiff’s statement proposed class action under Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑34, ss. 36, 45—Plaintiff alleging conspiracy between Mitsubishi corporations, their American, Canadian dealers to limit, control importation, free circulation of their products—Prothonotary finding on basis of factors in Desjean v. Intermix Media Inc., 2006 FC 1395, [2007] 4 F.C.R. 151, affd 2007 FCA 365, no real and substantial connection between Mitsubishi America and plaintiff’s cause of action—Prothonotary’s decision reviewed de novo—Applying real and substantial connection test, Mitsubishi America had to show Court’s lack of jurisdiction plain and obvious—Mitsubishi America not discharging this burden—Evidence of Mitsubishi America of limited scope since aiming only to show defendant’s absence from Canada—Yet, as case law provides, connection between defendant, forum important but not necessary factor—In case at bar, real and substantial connection existing between Mitsubishi America and subject of claim, namely recovery of damages for alleged conspiracy between defendants, said claim being authorized by Act—Lack of physical presence in Canada diminished by fact Mitsubishi America admitting its cars, parts may end up on Canadian market—Appeal allowed.

Bouchard v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada Inc. (T‑382‑09, 2010 FC 56, Lemieux J., judgment dated January 19, 2010, 48 pp.)