This case was the culmination of the Trial of an Action commenced by a liquor supplier seeking damages against its former agent for withholding products from the market, and the agent’s Counterclaim for payment in lieu of notice on termination. As part of the Counterclaim, the agent sought termination pay for both its agency in the West and its agency in Ontario, which arose under separate contracts. The supplier defended the Ontario claim, arguing that the Court had no jurisdiction simpliciter to decide the claim.

Justice Angotti cited Rule 11.25(3) for the relevant presumptive factors to consider in determining if there was a real and substantial connection between Alberta and the Ontario claim: 1) the claim is related to a contract made, performed, or breached in the chosen forum; 2) the chosen forum's law governs the claim; 3) the Defendant to the claim is resident in the chosen forum; or 4) the Defendant carries on business, by an actual presence, in the chosen forum.

Angotti J. found that the Ontario claim did not have a real and substantial connection to Alberta as the underlying contract was made and breached in Ontario, dealt with and agency relationship in Ontario, and included a clause that it was governed by the laws of Ontario. However, because the Ontario claim arose by way of Counterclaim, and the Court had jurisdiction for the primary claim, Justice Angotti found that the Court had jurisdiction simpliciter over the Ontario claim.

The supplier further argued that the Ontario claim was not properly pleaded, as there was no mention of the Ontario agreement or its breach in the Counterclaim. Justice Angotti considered the requirement arising from Rule 13.6(2) that Pleadings must set out relevant facts, and found that the Ontario claim was not properly pleaded due to the absence of facts related to the Ontario agreement. The Ontario claim therefore could not succeed.