Momentous.ca Corp. v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd., 2012 SCC 9 holds that, where parties have selected a forum to resolve disputes they should, generally, be held to that choice. Unless there is “strong cause” to displace the forum that the parties have agreed should resolve their dispute, order and fairness are better achieved when parties are held to their bargains.
[9] In Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V., 2003 SCC 27, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450, this Court confirmed that, in the absence of specific legislation, the proper test in determining whether to enforce a forum selection clause is discretionary in nature. It provides that unless there is a “strong cause” as to why a domestic court should exercise jurisdiction, order and fairness are better achieved when parties are held to their bargains.
1 comment:
Two issues:
1. EULAs and similar contracts (like cell phones) where one party has the power and legal expertise and the other cannot even participate in drafting or modifying the contract. These types generally claim the moon until the courts slap them down to what's reasonable (and legal).
2. Two parties deciding to resolve their dispute using Sharia law. Imagine the endless shrieking from the far-right.
Post a Comment