If what I've read about the circumstances of this default judgment are true (specifically, that both sides' lawyers were discussing forum conveniens and that an application from Mulroney's lawyers to strike the action for lack of jurisdiction was pending), this default judgment will enjoy a mercifully short lifespan. In fact, Mulroney's lawyers have filed a motion for an order setting aside the default judgment. (Of course, we may read about it again (and again, and again) in the writings of the enlightened).
(Were I Mulroney's counsel, my first call (after having this judgment set aside) would be to the Law Society of Upper Canada, for a quick chat about Herr Schreiber's lawyers' sharp practice.)
As for forum-shopping, it's hard to say whether or not this is part of a larger trend. My perception is that the differences between jurisdictions are largely procedural (which could explain this case), not substantive. (In part, this homogeneity is a result, I think, of the federal government's power to appoint all the section 96 judges in every province). Most of the forum-shopping now is not between courts of one province or another, but between arbitrators. Another example - and the only instance in which I recall ever engaging in anything approaching "forum-shopping" - is where counsel choose between the provincial superior court and the FCC in an area of concurrent jurisdiction (i.e. commencing a maritime action (for around $30,000) in the BC Supreme Court, with the hope that a massive claim about to be launched by the defendants ($120 million) would take the form of a counterclaim in that court, rather than a separate action in the Federal Court (where I couldn't get a jury).)
Recent Comments