Expedition Helicopters Inc. v. Honeywell Inc.,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Gillese and Juriansz, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2010 ONCA 351
• Citation: 2010 ONCA 351,(2010), 262 O.A.C. 195 (CA),100 OR (3d) 241,319 DLR (4th) 316,70 BLR (4th) 60,[2010] OJ No 1998 (QL),262 OAC 195,87 CPC (6th) 210,262 O.A.C. 195,[2010] O.J. No 1998 (QL),319 D.L.R. (4th) 316,100 O.R. (3d) 241,(2010), 262 OAC 195 (CA)
• Date: 21 April 2010
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Expedition Helicopters v. Honeywell Inc. (2010), 262 O.A.C. 195 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.064

Expedition Helicopters Inc. (plaintiff/respondent) v. Honeywell Inc. (defendant/appellant)

(C51719; 2010 ONCA 351)

Indexed As: Expedition Helicopters Inc. v. Honeywell Inc.

Ontario Court of Appeal

O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Gillese and Juriansz, JJ.A.

May 14, 2010.

Summary:

Honeywell Inc., a corporation based in Delaware, United States, provided a helicopter engine to Expedition Helicopters Inc., a corporation based in Ontario. The agreement included a forum selection clause providing that the courts of Arizona, United States, had exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings "arising out of or in connection with this Agreement". The helicopter in which the engine was installed crashed in northern Saskatchewan, resulting in the death of the pilot and a passenger and the complete loss of the helicopter. Expedition sued Honeywell in Ontario. Honeywell moved for a stay of Expedition's action, seeking to enforce the forum selection clause.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 732, dismissed the motion. Honeywell appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7286

Contracts - Jurisdiction - Choice of forum by parties - Honeywell Inc., a corporation based in Delaware, United States, provided a helicopter engine to Expedition Helicopters Inc., a corporation based in Ontario - The agreement included a forum selection clause providing that the courts of Arizona, United States, had exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings "arising out of or in connection with this Agreement" - The helicopter in which the engine was installed crashed in northern Saskatchewan, resulting in the death of the pilot and a passenger and the complete loss of the helicopter - Expedition sued Honeywell in Ontario - Honeywell moved for a stay of Expedition's action, seeking to enforce the forum selection clause - The motions judge dismissed the motion - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed Honeywell's appeal - The motions judge did not state the correct test for enforceability of a forum selection clause and reached the wrong result - A plaintiff had to show "strong cause" that the case was exceptional and the forum selection clause should not be enforced - In this case, there was no reason to depart from the presumption that Expedition should be held to the bargain that it made - A departure was only justified in "exceptional circumstances" - There was nothing exceptional in this case.

Cases Noticed:

Pompey (Z.I.) Industrie et al. v. Ecu-Line N.V. et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; 303 N.R. 201, appld. [para. 6].

Ship Eleftheria, Re, [1969] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 237 (Adm. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Peel, E., Exclusive jurisdiction agreements: purity and pragmatism in the conflict of laws, [1998] L.M.C.L.Q. 182, pp. 189, 190 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Susan M. Brown, for the appellant;

Paul J. Pape and David S. Steinberg, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 21, 2010, by O'Connor, A.C.J.O., Gillese and Juriansz, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Juriansz, J.A., on May 14, 2010.