Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo : 
The SCC Clarifies Approach to Jurisdiction Against Multiple Defendants in Cross-Border Disputes

In Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada has provided important guidance on when a Canadian court can assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants. Importantly, following Sinclair, a plaintiff wishing to sue multiple defendants in Canada must establish a real and substantial connection between the jurisdiction, the subject matter of the dispute and each defendant, not just the subject matter of the dispute as a whole.

Background

While vacationing in Italy with his family, the plaintiff, Mr. Sinclair, used his credit card company's travel agent service to book a water taxi. The travel agent, in turn, engaged a third-party travel provider, which arranged for the water taxi. The water taxi crashed with the Sinclairs aboard, and Mr. Sinclair was seriously injured. Mr. Sinclair brought an action in Ontario against his credit card company, the third-party travel arranger, the water taxi driver and the company that owned the water taxi.

In Club Resorts Ltd v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, the Supreme Court held that a Canadian court can assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant if there is a “real and substantial connection” between the dispute and the province where the claim is filed. The Van Breda test has two stages:

1. Is there a “presumptive connecting factor” linking the dispute to the province?
2. If so, is the presumed real and substantial connection with the province nonetheless rebutted given the circumstances?

The Sinclairs argued that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction based on the presumptive connecting factor of a "contract connected with the dispute being made in the province." The Italian defendants asked the Court to dismiss the claims against them for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion judge found that Ontario had jurisdiction over the Italian defendants, based on the motion judge's finding that Mr. Sinclair's contract with his credit card provider and the contract between the credit card company and the third-party service provider were formed in Ontario. In the motion judge's view, that grounded a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. A three-judge panel unanimously held that Ontario did not have jurisdiction over the Italian defendants. However, the Court of Appeal was split on whether it was necessary to establish a presumptive connecting factor and a real and substantial connection in respect of each defendant.

The Supreme Court of Canada's Decision

Writing for a five-judge majority, Justice Côté agreed with the Court of Appeal that Ontario did not have jurisdiction. The majority reasons also offered further guidance on how courts are to assess jurisdiction in contract and tort disputes. The majority's decision is consistent with the Court's commitment to honour the principles of corporate separateness. The Court's decision bolsters the division between litigants, increasing the degree of involvement required from a corporation to be subjugated to Canada's jurisdiction.

The majority emphasized that jurisdiction must be considered from the perspective of each defendant. A contract’s connection to the dispute for one defendant cannot be used to extend jurisdiction to another, nor can multiple weakly connected factors be aggregated to create jurisdiction. For each defendant, the presumption of jurisdiction based on the contractual connection factor applies only if the conduct at issue arises from the specific contract executed between the parties. Put differently, an Ontario contract cannot be used to bootstrap jurisdiction onto other defendants who were not sufficiently involved with the Ontario agreement.

Applying this principle, the majority found that the cardmember agreement between the Sinclairs and the credit card company was an Ontario contract and therefore concluded that the first stage of the Van Breda test was satisfied. Since the cardmember agreement led to the water taxi booking, which in turn gave rise to Mr. Sinclair's claim against the Italian defendants, Ontario was sufficiently connected to the dispute to establish a presumption of jurisdiction.

However, the Italian defendants had rebutted the presumption of jurisdiction. The fact that the cardholder agreement was formed in Ontario established only a weak connection between Ontario and the subject matter of the dispute—i.e., a boat crash in Italy, on a boat operated by an Italian national and owned by an Italian company. Importantly, the Italian defendants were not parties to the contract between the credit card company and Mr.Sinclair and had no reason to expect they would be sued in an Ontario court.

Four judges dissented. The dissent held that the Italian defendants had not rebutted the presumption of jurisdiction created by the Ontario contracts. In the dissents' view, the connection between those contracts and the dispute was sufficient to give Ontario jurisdiction. Animating this finding was a concern with providing Canadian courts the means to assert jurisdiction over a set of “integrally related torts.”

Key Takeaways

1. Under the Van Breda test, jurisdiction must be assessed and established from the perspective of each defendant. A plaintiff cannot rely on one defendant's connection to the forum to "bootstrap" jurisdiction against another defendant. Nor can a plaintiff rely on a series of non-presumptive connecting factors to establish jurisdiction against a particular defendant.
2. While Sinclair is concerned with litigation against multiple, unrelated foreign defendants, the Supreme Court's directive that jurisdiction must be assessed from the perspective of each defendant should be equally applicable where multiple related party defendants (such companies in the same corporate enterprise) are named in the same claim.¹
3. If a party relies on the presumptive connecting factor of a contract connected with the dispute being formed in the jurisdiction, the Court will carefully consider nature of the contract at issue and its relationship to the subject-matter of the dispute.