DAYTONA POWER CORP v HYDRO COMPANY, INC, 2020 ABQB 723
HUNT MCDONALD J
11.25: Real and substantial connection
This was an Appeal from an Order of a Master which held that Alberta had jurisdiction simpliciter over the dispute. The litigation involved a contractual dispute between Alberta investors regarding a project located in California. Justice Hunt McDonald noted that the first issue to be determined was whether the Alberta Court had jurisdiction simpliciter over the dispute.
Her Ladyship cited Rule 11.25, which allows for service of documents outside of Canada only if a real and substantial connection exists between Alberta and the facts on which a claim is based. Her Ladyship noted that Rule 11.25(3)(c) provides that where the claim is governed by the law of Alberta, a real and substantial connection is presumed to exist.
While the Applicants argued that they did not have to submit to the jurisdiction of the Alberta Court as there was no choice of forum clause in the agreement and both commercial parties were sophisticated, both contracts provided that they are to be “governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Alberta and the laws of Canada applicable therein”.
In dismissing the Appeal, Hunt McDonald J. applied Rule 11.25(3)(c) and determined that a real and substantial connection was presumed, as the governing law of the agreement was the law of Alberta.View CanLII Details