|
Contempt - Venue. Castillo v. Xela Enterprises Ltd.
In Castillo v. Xela Enterprises Ltd. (Ont CA, 2024) the Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a contempt finding, here where the contemnor (the one being in contempt) sworn a key Declaration in Guatemala.
Here the court discusses the 'real and substantial connection' test:Analysis
(1) Did the motion judge err in law by holding that the court had territorial jurisdiction to find the appellant in contempt based on his Declaration that was not made in Canada but in Guatemala?
[55] The appellant submits that because the court found that the contemptuous conduct by the appellant was making the Declaration in Guatemala, the court did not have territorial jurisdiction to make the contempt finding against him. The appellant relies on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Libman v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178, at pp. 199, 212-13, 1985 CanLII 51, at paras. 42, 73-76.
[56] In Libman, the Supreme Court set out the test for determining when a Canadian court may take jurisdiction over a criminal offence that occurred in whole or in part outside Canada. LaForest J. summarized the test at pp. 212-12 (para. 74):As I see it, all that is necessary to make an offence subject to the jurisdiction of our courts is that a significant portion of the activities constituting that offence took place in Canada. As it is put by modern academics, it is sufficient that there be a “real and substantial link” between an offence and this country, a test well-known in public and private international law. [57] He concluded at p. 213 (para. 76):Just what may constitute a real and substantial link in a particular case, I need not explore. There were ample links here. The outer limits of the test may, however, well be coterminous with the requirements of international comity. [58] The test also applies to a finding of civil contempt: see Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada Liberty Net, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626, at p. 670, 1998 CanLII 818, at para. 52.
|
