The Ontario Court of Appeal considered a motion by a Michigan lawyer and his law firm, requesting the Court to decline jurisdiction. The lawyer had been retained by an Ontario Insurer to represent an Ontario Company and its president, in an action commenced in Michigan.
The insurer informed the Michigan lawyer of coverage issues. Neither the lawyer, nor the insurer informed the insured of the potential coverage issues. After judgement in Michigan, the insured commenced an action in Ontario against the insurer, the Michigan lawyer and the insurance broker.
The Michigan Lawyer brought a motion contesting the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court. The motion was unsuccessful and it was appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal held:
"Here, other factors tending to show such a connection include the following: all parties except the appellants are resident in Ontario; all relevant contracts between the parties, including the appellant's retainer agreement, were concluded in Ontario; the appellants knew they were representing clients whose business was carried on from Ontario; and Emery dealt with Jones by telephone in Ontario and even met with Jones on one occasion to obtain instructions in Welland. ...
"In an action with multiple defendants and multiple claims, some of which have an extra-territorial dimension, the claims must be assessed as a whole, for purposes of the jurisdictional analysis, without treating the claim against the foreign defendant as a separate action."
The Court dismissed the appeal holding that the Ontario Court had jurisdiction.
10:44:51 PM 
| 
