Knowles v. Lindstrom et al., (2014) 315 O.A.C. 175 (CA)

JudgeDoherty, Goudge and Lauwers, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateNovember 06, 2013
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(2014), 315 O.A.C. 175 (CA);2014 ONCA 116

Knowles v. Lindstrom (2014), 315 O.A.C. 175 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.011

Nancy Evelyn Knowles (applicant/respondent) v. James E. Lindstrom and Canada Realty LLC (respondents/appellants)

(C57226; 2014 ONCA 116)

Indexed As: Knowles v. Lindstrom et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Goudge and Lauwers, JJ.A.

February 13, 2014.

Summary:

Lindstrom and Knowles began living together in Florida in 2002. They separated in February 2012. They never married. Knowles left Florida in February 2012 and had lived in Toronto since the break-up. Knowles brought an application in Ontario seeking spousal support under the Family Law Act, and a declaration that she was a beneficial owner of two properties in Ontario, which were purchased by Lindstrom or his company while he and Knowles lived together. Lindstrom moved for a stay of Knowles' application. He argued, first, that the Ontario Superior Court had no jurisdiction over the claims and, second, that if Ontario had jurisdiction, Florida was the forum conveniens. Alternatively, Lindstrom sought an order that, if the application proceeded in Ontario, Florida law should apply to the adjudication of the claims.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 2818, held that Ontario had jurisdiction and that Ontario was the forum conveniens. The motion judge further held that Ontario law applied to the claims. Lindstrom appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 603

Jurisdiction - General principles - Jurisdiction simpliciter - Lindstrom and Knowles began living together in Florida in 2002 - They separated in February 2012 - They never married - Knowles left Florida in February 2012 and had lived in Toronto since the break-up - Knowles brought an application in Ontario seeking spousal support and a declaration that she was a beneficial owner of two properties in Ontario, which were purchased by Lindstrom or his company while he and Knowles lived together - Lindstrom moved for a stay of Knowles' application - He argued that the Ontario Superior Court had no jurisdiction over the claims - The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction to hear Knowles' claims - The location of the property was a presumptive connecting factor - The sale of the property did not change the essential nature of the claim - A single presumptive connecting factor, in the absence of any rebuttal of that presumption by Lindstrom, was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the analysis in Van Breda (2012 SCC) - The motion judge had also concluded that Knowles and Lindstrom were ordinarily resident in Ontario and Florida between 2007 and their break-up in February 2012 and that their residence constituted a presumptive connecting factor in respect of both the property and the support claims - The court agreed with the motion judge that Thomson v. M.N.R. (1946 SCC) established that a person could be "ordinarily resident" in more than one place at the same time - The court would not disturb the motion judge's finding that the parties were ordinarily resident in Ontario at the time of the break-up, and it agreed with the motion judge that ordinary residence provided the necessary connecting factor to find that Ontario courts had jurisdiction over both the property and support claims - See paragraphs 16 to 39.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 603

Jurisdiction - General principles - Jurisdiction simpliciter - Lindstrom and Knowles began living together in Florida in 2002 - They separated in February 2012 - They never married - Knowles left Florida in February 2012 and had lived in Toronto since the break-up - Knowles brought an application in Ontario seeking spousal support under the Family Law Act and a declaration that she was a beneficial owner of two properties in Ontario, which were purchased by Lindstrom or his company while he and Knowles lived together - Lindstrom moved for a stay of Knowles' application - He argued that the Ontario Superior Court had no jurisdiction over the claims - The motion judge held that Ontario had jurisdiction - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Lindstrom's appeal - While it was not necessary to determine whether the motion judge erred in finding that Knowles' residence at the time she commenced the application was sufficient to ground jurisdiction, the court made three observations - First, Lindstrom's contention that jurisdiction premised upon the applicant's residence at the time of application opened the door to forum shopping had no application here - Knowles had very real connections to Ontario before, during, and after the time she lived with Lindstrom - In any event, in cases that did smell of forum shopping, the doctrine of forum non-conveniens could relieve against the rigid application of a jurisdictional rule based on residence - Second, the motion judge's consideration of the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA) was appropriate in the context of the jurisdictional analysis even though the support application was not brought under that Act - Van Breda (2012 SCC) instructed that, in considering whether a fact or factors should be treated as presumptive connectors for jurisdictional purposes, the court could look to the treatment of the proposed connecting factor in related statutes - Third, Lindstrom had pointed to Van Breda as authority for the proposition that the applicant's residence at the time of the application could not be a presumptive connecting factor for the purposes of jurisdiction - The statement in Van Breda was made in respect of tort claims - It did not necessarily apply to all claims - The list of presumptive connecting factors depended, in part, on the subject matter of the litigation - The factors might vary depending on the nature of the claim - See paragraphs 35 to 38.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2064

Family law - Property - Forum conveniens - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2223 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2222

Family law - Maintenance - Jurisdiction of court - [See both Conflict of Laws - Topic 603 ].

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2223

Family law - Maintenance - Forum conveniens - Lindstrom and Knowles began living together in Florida in 2002 - They separated in February 2012 - They never married - Knowles left Florida in February 2012 and had lived in Toronto since the break-up - Knowles brought an application in Ontario seeking spousal support under the Family Law Act, and a declaration that she was a beneficial owner of two properties in Ontario, which were purchased by Lindstrom or his company while he and Knowles lived together - Lindstrom moved for a stay of Knowles' application - He argued that Florida was the forum conveniens - Alternatively, he sought an order that, if the application proceeded in Ontario, Florida law should apply - The motion judge held that Ontario was the forum conveniens and that Ontario law applied to the claims - Lindstrom appealed - He submitted that the motion judge gave undue weight to Knowles' loss of juridical advantage if Ontario declined jurisdiction (Knowles had no claim for support under Florida law) - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The motion judge's observation that Knowles would lose a juridical advantage was made in the context of a review of several factors relevant to the forum conveniens inquiry - Most of those factors clearly favoured Ontario and fully justified the motion judge's conclusion that Lindstrom had failed to show that Florida was clearly the more appropriate forum - Lindstrom did not meet the burden of demonstrating that Ontario law should not apply to the claims - The property-related claim was clearly much more closely related to Ontario than any other jurisdiction - The argument in favour of applying Ontario law to the support claim was less powerful - However, bearing in mind the motion judge's finding that Lindstrom and Knowles were ordinarily resident in Ontario for the last five years of their relationship and that Knowles was resident in Ontario at the time of the application, the motion judge properly found that there was no compelling reason to apply the law of another jurisdiction to the support claim - The interrelationship of the two claims was a further reason for applying the same law to both - See paragraphs 40 to 49.

Cases Noticed:

Van Breda et al. v. Village Resorts Ltd. et al., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572; 429 N.R. 217; 291 O.A.C. 201; 2012 SCC 17, appld. [para. 16].

Wang v. Lin (2013), 300 O.A.C. 381; 2013 ONCA 33, refd to. [para. 27].

Naeli v. Ghaeinizadeh, [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 1; 2013 ONCA 2, refd to. [para. 27].

Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1946] S.C.R. 209, consd. [para. 28].

Derksen v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1995] B.C.T.C. Uned. G55 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Amchem Products Inc. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897; 150 N.R. 321; 23 B.C.A.C. 1; 39 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Fisher v. Fisher (2008), 232 O.A.C. 213; 88 O.R.(3d) 241; 2008 ONCA 11, refd to. [para. 49].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (14th Ed. 1993), p. 1863 [para. 47].

Counsel:

Patrick D. Schmidt and George Karahotzitis, for the respondents/appellants;

Philip Epstein, Q.C., and Melanie Kraft, for the applicant/respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 6, 2013, before Doherty, Goudge and Lauwers, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Doherty, J.A., and was released on February 13, 2014.

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 27-30, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 5, 2022
    ...Fraudulent Misappropriation, Solloway v Klondex Mines Ltd, 2014 ONSC 391, Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Knowles v Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, Canada v South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165, Vahle v Global Work & Travel Co Inc, 2020 ONCA 224, Ontario v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ON......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 12, 2022 ' December 16, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 20, 2022
    ...2003 SCC 72, Ali v. Ibrahim, 2019 ONSC 300, Zeineldin v. Elshikh, 2020 ONSC 1160, Wang v. Lin, 2013 ONCA 33, Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, Li v. Li, 2021 ONCA 669, Orabi v. Qaoud, 2005 NSCA 28, L.G.V. v. L.AP., 2016 NBCA 23 CIVIL DECISIONS Vale Canada Limited v. Royal & Sun Alliance ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 27 ' October 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 5, 2021
    ...Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 15, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Wang v. Lin, 2013 ONCA 33, Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, Krebs v. Cote, 2021 ONCA 467, Garcia v. Tahoe Resources Inc., 2017 BCCA 39, Hurst v. Société Nationale de L'Amiante, 2008 ONCA 573, McName......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 27 ' October 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 5, 2021
    ...Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 15, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Wang v. Lin, 2013 ONCA 33, Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, Krebs v. Cote, 2021 ONCA 467, Garcia v. Tahoe Resources Inc., 2017 BCCA 39, Hurst v. Société Nationale de L'Amiante, 2008 ONCA 573, McName......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Beaver v. Hill, 2017 ONSC 7245
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • December 8, 2017
    ...322 at paras 25-34 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused 2004 CarswellAlta 366 (S.C.C.); Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2013 ONSC 2818 (S.C.J.), aff’d 2014 ONCA 116 (C.A.)).[60] Consent and attornment are often grouped together as a ground for establishing jurisdiction simpliciter. However, they are disti......
  • Dollinger v. Starke, 2020 BCSC 1574
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • October 26, 2020
    ...year, for months at a stretch, for more than five years. That amounts to ‘ordinary residence’” (at para. 31). [35] Knowles [v. Linddraws, 2014 ONCA 116] draws on Thomson to find that a type of lifestyle may be more conducive to finding a person ordinarily resident in more than one location.......
  • Krushelinski v. Wehner, 2015 SKQB 195
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • June 30, 2015
    ...forum was clearly more appropriate. [43] The same conclusion was reached in a spousal support application in Knowles v Lindstrom , 2014 ONCA 116, 42 RFL (7th) 77 [ Knowles ], leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed, 2014 CanLII 45834. There, the Court held that the ISOA (On......
  • Abraham v. Gallo,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • December 15, 2022
    ...of family law proceedings and marriage breakdown: Wang v. Lin, 2013 ONCA 33, 358 D.L.R. (4th) 452, at paras. 46-47; Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, 118 O.R. (3d) 763, at para. 27, leave to appeal refused, [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 161; Li v. Li, 2021 ONCA 669, 159 O.R. (3d) 216, at para. 36,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 27-30, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • July 5, 2022
    ...Fraudulent Misappropriation, Solloway v Klondex Mines Ltd, 2014 ONSC 391, Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Knowles v Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, Canada v South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165, Vahle v Global Work & Travel Co Inc, 2020 ONCA 224, Ontario v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ON......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 12, 2022 ' December 16, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • December 20, 2022
    ...2003 SCC 72, Ali v. Ibrahim, 2019 ONSC 300, Zeineldin v. Elshikh, 2020 ONSC 1160, Wang v. Lin, 2013 ONCA 33, Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, Li v. Li, 2021 ONCA 669, Orabi v. Qaoud, 2005 NSCA 28, L.G.V. v. L.AP., 2016 NBCA 23 CIVIL DECISIONS Vale Canada Limited v. Royal & Sun Alliance ......
  • COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (JUNE 27 – JUNE 30)
    • Canada
    • LexBlog Canada
    • July 2, 2022
    ...Fraudulent Misappropriation, Solloway v Klondex Mines Ltd, 2014 ONSC 391, Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Knowles v Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, Canada v South Yukon Forest Corporation, 2012 FCA 165, Vahle v Global Work & Travel Co Inc, 2020 ONCA 224, Ontario v Rothmans Inc, 2013 ON......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 27 ' October 1)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 5, 2021
    ...Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 15, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Wang v. Lin, 2013 ONCA 33, Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116, Krebs v. Cote, 2021 ONCA 467, Garcia v. Tahoe Resources Inc., 2017 BCCA 39, Hurst v. Société Nationale de L'Amiante, 2008 ONCA 573, McName......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Jurisdiction In Personam
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Conflict of Laws. Second Edition
    • June 21, 2016
    ...of the province. The current debate is about which of these connections 148 Ontario Rules, above note 4, rr 17.02(a), (c), and (e). 149 2014 ONCA 116 at paras 150 See, for example, Columbia Pictures Industries Inc v Wang, 2007 SKCA 133; Tucows.com Co v Lojas Renner SA, 2011 ONCA 548. 151 Se......
  • Matrimonial Property
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Conflict of Laws. Second Edition
    • June 21, 2016
    ...for example, The Family Property Act, CCSM c F25, s 2.1. See, for example, Christopher v Zimmerman, 2000 BCCA 532; Knowles v Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116. 501 502 CONFLICT OF to pay the amount of money to the other spouse required to equalize or share the property’s value between them. B. JURIS......
  • Support Obligations
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Conflict of Laws. Second Edition
    • June 21, 2016
    ...v Parrish, 2014 ONCA 856 [Navarro]. See, for example, Ghaeinizadeh v Ku De Ta Capital Inc, 2013 ONCA 2 at para 15; Knowles v Lindstrom, 2014 ONCA 116 [Knowles]; Wang v Lin, 2013 ONCA 33 at para See, for example, Follwell v Holmes, [2006] OJ No 4387 at paras 26-27 (SCJ); Stefanou v Stefanou,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT