Law Commons^™

Residual Discretion: The Concept Of Forum Of Necessity Under The Court Jurisdiction And Proceedings Transfer Act, Michael Sobkin

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Under section 6 of the CJPTA, a court may hear a case for which it lacks territorial competence under the statute if it is satisfied that: (1) there is no other court outside the province in which the plaintiff can commence the proceeding; or (2) the commencement of the proceeding outside the province cannot reasonably be required. Courts in provinces that have not enacted the CJPTA have grafted a similar discretion on to the common law rules of jurisdiction. This article seeks to determine the intentions of the drafters of the CJPTA in providing for this power and to discuss …

Cross-Border Transfers Of Court Proceedings, Vaughan Black

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act might easily have been two statutes rather than one. There could have been a pair of uniform acts, one delineating the territorial competence of the provinces’ superior courts and the other implementing a regime for the cross-border transfer of court proceedings. After all, these two matters are neither logically interdependent nor especially tightly linked. Part 3 of the CJPTA, dealing with transfers of proceedings, is not confined to lawsuits where the initial court takes jurisdiction under Part 2. It applies regardless of whether the initial court bases its jurisdiction on the CJPTA or …

The Court Jurisdiction And Proceedings Transfer Act And The Hague Conference’S Judgments And Jurisdiction Projects, Joost Blom

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA) codifies the substantive law of jurisdiction in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan. One of the questions that may be posed by the future of the CJPTA is how the jurisdictional system that it enacts would function in relation to two potential international conventions that are contemplated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. One, a convention on the enforcement of judgments, is in an advanced stage of negotiation and may well be adopted by the Hague Conference. It deals with jurisdiction indirectly, by defining jurisdictional standards or “filters” that must …

Judicial Jurisdiction In Canada: The Cjpta—A Decade Of Progress, Janet Walker

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In 2016, the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (“CJPTA”) marked its tenth year in force. Promulgated by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, and adopted in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, the CJPTA was developed to clarify and advance the law of judicial jurisdiction. In a symposium hosted by Osgoode Hall Law School, ten leading scholars were invited to present papers on specific questions in order to assess the promise of the CJPTA to meet the needs of Canadians in the years ahead and to provide leadership for the law in other parts of Canada. This article provides …

Six Of One, Half A Dozen Of The Other? Jurisdiction In Common Law Canada, Stephen G.A. Pitel

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This short article considers the central differences in the law on taking jurisdiction in civil and commercial disputes between those common law provinces that have implemented a statute on jurisdiction (British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan) and those common law provinces that rely on the common law (Alberta, Ontario, and others). It focuses on the distinction between presence and ordinary residence, the role and analysis of presumptive connecting factors for taking jurisdiction, and issues related to immovable property.

Jurisdiction Motions And Access To Justice: An Ontario Tale, Gerard J. Kennedy

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article investigates the access to justice concerns surrounding jurisdiction motions in Ontario, having analyzed one hundred and forty-seven jurisdiction motions decided in Ontario between 2010 and 2015. The author challenges the previously expressed view that jurisdiction motions are presently being “abused” by defendants and their counsel. He also suggests that trends in jurisdiction motions this decade point to some improvement from an access to justice perspective. Nonetheless, jurisdiction motions are frequently presenting an impediment to access to justice, with uncertainty in the law likely being the primary reason for this. The author considers potential proposals to address the access …

General Jurisdiction Over Corporate Defendants Under The Cjpta: Consistent With International Standards?, Catherine Walsh

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

“General jurisdiction” refers to a court’s competence to adjudicate disputes arising out of a defendant’s activities anywhere in the world. Absent consent or submission, international instruments reserve general jurisdiction over corporations to the states in which the corporation has its registered office, centre of administration, or principal place of business. The bases of general jurisdiction under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (CJPTA) are far broader and include simply having a place of business in the forum or even registering to carry on business there. This article locates the conceptual roots of the CJPTA approach in the traditional common …

Has The Cjpta Readied Canada For The Hague Choice Of Court Convention?, Geneviève Saumier

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This paper examines whether the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act has readied Canada to adopt the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention. Reviewing the Hague Convention as well as previous and current law and cases on forum selection clauses in common law Canada, including the very recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Douez v Facebook, yields two conclusions. First, there are existing interpretive challenges flowing from gaps in the CJPTA with respect to jurisdictional clauses that need to be addressed. Second, the principles governing forum selection clauses in Canada are largely consistent with those put forward in the …

Three Objections To Forum Of Necessity: Global Access To Justice, International Criminal Law, And Proper Party, Sagi Peari

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In civil procedure, the plaintiff is the one who initiates the litigation process. In which forum can he or she initiate this process? In very general terms, the Canadian rules of judicial jurisdiction provide the plaintiff with three options for jurisdiction acquisition. First, the jurisdiction can be acquired based on explicit agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the identity of the forum to adjudicate the case. Second, the plaintiff can initiate the litigation in the forum that has the so-called “real and substantial connection” between it and the parties’ specific interaction under the given ground of liability …

The Federal–State Standing Gap: How To Enforce Federal Law In Federal Court Without Article Iii Standing, Peter N. Salib, David K. Suska

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

You, too, can sue Donald Trump under the Emoluments Clause!

Since Inauguration Day, several lawsuits have been filed against President Trump because of his refusal to divest certain assets. They assert that Trump’s business interests conflict with the Emoluments Clause of Article I. That arcane provision forbids certain federal officials from accepting any perquisite or gain from a foreign monarch or state. The suits contend, for example, that a foreign dignitary’s booking of a room at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. would constitute an unlawful emolument.

Most commentators quickly threw cold water on the prospect of any plaintiff …

National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “waters of the United States,” as used in the Clean Water Act, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers together passed the WOTUS Rule. Unfortunately, the Rule has created more confusion than clarity, resulting in a number of lawsuits challenging substantive portions of the Rule’s language. National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense did not address those substantive challenges, but instead determined whether those claims challenging the Rule must be filed in federal district courts or federal courts of appeals. In its decision, the …

Certification Of Legal Questions To The Utah Supreme Court, David Nuffer

Duke Law Master of Judicial Studies Theses

For 30 years, federal courts have certified questions of state law to the Utah Supreme Court. This thesis examines the history and utility of the process and recommends changes to the process in the federal district court and in the Utah Supreme Court.

The current focus of federal judges in certifying questions is on utility for the case before the court. But certification of questions from a federal court to a state court is an expression of federalism—a humble acknowledgment by a federal authority which is often regarded as supreme that the state is the proper and best authority to …

The Federal Equity Power, Michael T. Morley

Scholarly Publications

Throughout the first century and a half of our nation’s history, federal courts treated equity as a type of general law. They applied a uniform, freestanding body of principles derived from the English Court of Chancery to all equitable issues that came before them, regardless of whether a case arose under federal or state law. In 1945, in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, the United States Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the changes wrought by the Erie Doctrine, federal courts may continue to rely on these traditional principles of equity to determine the availability of equitable relief, such as injunctions, …

Erie As A Way Of Life, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Court Capture, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Capture — the notion that a federal agency can become controlled by the industry the agency is supposed to be regulating — is a fundamental concern for administrative law scholars. Surprisingly, however, no thorough treatment of how capture theory applies to the federal judiciary has been done. The few scholars who have attempted to apply the insights of capture theory to federal courts have generally concluded that the federal courts are insulated from capture concerns.

This Article challenges the notion that the federal courts cannot be captured. It makes two primary arguments. As an initial matter, this Article makes the …