Sinclair had an AMEX concierge service which booked a water taxi in Italy from a services provider. An accident occurred in Venice and Sinclair sued, among others, AMEX Canada and three Italian companies, in Ontario. The Supreme Court considered whether Ontario courts had jurisdiction over Italian companies sued in tort by Ontario residents injured in an accident abroad. Sinclair argued that the Ontario-based contract created a sufficient connection to bring the foreign defendants under Ontario’s jurisdiction.
Applying the framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda (2012), the Court analyzed two key issues: whether there was a presumptive connecting factor, and if so, whether it was rebutted. The narrow majority (5–4) agreed that a contract formed in Ontario could serve as a presumptive connecting factor. However, they held that in this case, the connection between that contract and the Italian defendants was too remote. The defendants were not parties to the Ontario contract, had no direct dealings with AMEX Canada, and were unaware of the booking arrangements.
The majority emphasized that the mere existence of a contract formed in the forum is not enough to ground jurisdiction—it must be meaningfully connected to the tort claim and the defendants themselves. Because the tort occurred entirely in Italy, and the defendants had no relationship with Ontario, the Court found the presumption of jurisdiction rebutted.
This decision narrows the circumstances under which Canadian courts can assert jurisdiction over foreign defendants. It reinforces the need for a real and substantial connection grounded in the defendant’s conduct and relationships, rather than the plaintiff’s location or unilateral contractual arrangements. The decision restricts when Canadian courts can assume jurisdiction and may limit plaintiffs’ ability to ‘forum shop’, leaving their cases to be potentially decided in unfamiliar, foreign jurisdictions.
Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo Motoscafi di Venezia S.R.L., 2025 SCC 27