Tamminga v. Tamminga et al., (2014) 323 O.A.C. 67 (CA)

• Judge: Juriansz, Tulloch and Strathy, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 02, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2014), 323 O.A.C. 67 (CA);2014 ONCA 478

Tamminga v. Tamminga (2014), 323 O.A.C. 67 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.020

Karen Tamminga (plaintiff/appellant) v. William Tamminga, Tamminga Farms Ltd. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (defendants/respondents)

(C57444; 2014 ONCA 478)

Indexed As: Tamminga v. Tamminga et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Juriansz, Tulloch and Strathy, JJ.A.

June 18, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured when she fell off a truck in Alberta. She commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the truck's owner and operator, who lived in Alberta, and its corporate co-owner, which was registered and carried on business in Alberta. She also sued her Ontario automobile insurer. A motion judge stayed the action against those defendants. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff's insurance contract was not a sufficient "presumptive connecting factor" under Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda (2012 S.C.C.) to give the court jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7605

Torts - Jurisdiction - Real and substantial connection - The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured when she fell off a truck in Alberta - She commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the truck's owner and operator, who lived in Alberta, and its corporate co-owner, which was registered and carried on business in Alberta - She also sued her Ontario automobile insurer - A motion judge stayed the action against those defendants - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - The plaintiff's insurance contract was not a sufficient "presumptive connecting factor" under Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda (2012 S.C.C.) to give the court jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants - There was no nexus between the insurance contract and the respondents.

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, dist. [para. 1].

Export Packers Co. v. SPI International Transportation (2012), 294 O.A.C. 319; 2012 ONCA 481, refd to. [para. 21].

Gajraj et al. v. DeBernardo et al. (2002), 16 O.A.C. 60; 60 O.R.(3d) 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Misyura v. Walton et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 5397; 2012 ONSC 5397, refd to. [para. 28].

Paraie v. Cangemi et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 6341; 2012 ONSC 6341, refd to. [para. 28].

Mitchell v. Jeckovich, 2013 ONSC 7494, refd to. [para. 28].

Cesario v. Gondek et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 4563; 2012 ONSC 4563, dist. [para. 29].

Counsel:

John J. Adair, for the appellant;

Rahool P. Agarwal and Guy White, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on May 2, 2014, by Juriansz, Tulloch and Strathy, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Strathy, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on June 18, 2014.