Context & Procedural Path

The Sinclairs—Canadian travellers—were injured in a water taxi accident in Venice, Italy. The trip had been arranged through Amex Canada Inc. (Centurion Travel Service), which coordinated the booking chain via Carey International, leading ultimately to Italian providers Venezia Turismo and Venice Limousine S.R.L.^[2] The Sinclairs sued these Italian companies in Ontario, claiming damages for injuries suffered in the accident.

At Ontario’s Superior Court, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was denied—on the grounds that the Ontario contract (via Amex) provided a sufficient connecting factor. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned that decision, ruling the court lacked jurisdiction and that any presumption drawn from an Ontario contract was successfully rebutted.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

On July 31, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Court of Appeal^[3], holding that Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction over the Italian entities named in the case.^[4]

Key Legal Takeaways

1. Reaffirming Van Breda’s Narrow Reach
   The decision underscores that presumptive connecting factors from Van Breda^[5], especially the “contract made in the province” test, must be applied with precision. A contract involving other parties—even if within Ontario—does not extend jurisdiction to foreign entities unless those entities were direct participants in—or contemplated by—that contract.
2. The Rebuttal Stage Is Critical
   Even if a presumptive connecting factor exists, courts must actively consider whether it has been rebutted. Here, the Italian companies demonstrated that they were not connected to the booking contract in any meaningful way, that the tort occurred in Italy, and that they had no business presence or awareness of any Ontario connection
3. Defendant-by-Defendant Analysis Required
   Jurisdiction cannot be inferred through association. The SCC reinforces that each defendant must be considered individually. A connection applicable to one party (e.g., Amex) cannot draw all related parties into the jurisdiction by default

Practical Implications

• Expect stricter scrutiny by courts on jurisdiction based on foreign torts—Ontario contracts alone won’t suffice to pull in foreign tortfeasors.
• Litigants should carefully evaluate whether each defendant meets the Van Breda threshold and whether this can be rebutted, rather than assume a chain of agreements carries sufficient weight.
• This decision preserves jurisdictional limits, respecting territorial boundaries and protecting defendants from being hauled into Ontario courts based on minimal or indirect ties.

This ruling reasserts the systemic principle: Canadian courts must avoid overreaching by demanding a direct, substantial, and clearly established connection—per defendant—before assuming jurisdiction over foreign parties. Let me know if you’d like a LinkedIn‐friendly summary or further analysis on how this impacts mediation or conflict-of-laws strategy.