Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jurisdiction over a foreign tort was challenged based on the absence of a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

• The plaintiff relied on corporate registrations in Ontario to establish jurisdiction, which the court found insufficient.

• All material events occurred in Alberta, weakening Ontario’s relevance to the dispute.

• The Ontario Occupiers’ Liability Act was pleaded, but Alberta’s equivalent law was deemed applicable.

• No defendants conducted the relevant operational activities from Ontario.

• The forum non conveniens analysis favored Alberta as the clearly more appropriate venue.

Facts and procedural background

Norma Anne Pleasance, a resident of the United States, initiated a $2 million personal injury lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice after she tripped and fell on September 2, 2022, while moving between two connected rooms at the Fairmont Banff Springs hotel in Alberta. The fall allegedly caused her injury. On August 29, 2024, she commenced an action in Ontario against several parties she claimed were responsible for the hotel: Fairmont Banff Springs, Accor Management Canada Inc., Parks Bottom Co. Real Estate Holdings Inc., and OMERS Realty Corporation.

The plaintiff alleged that these entities were owners or occupiers of the hotel and breached the Occupiers’ Liability Act (Ontario), as well as general duties under tort law. Specific allegations included failure to keep the premises safe, failure to post adequate warnings, failure to inspect and maintain the floor area, and negligence in training staff.

In response, the defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on two grounds: first, that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction; and second, that even if it had jurisdiction, Alberta was the more appropriate venue for the trial based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Court’s analysis on jurisdiction

The court applied the real and substantial connection test from established Supreme Court precedents. It analyzed whether presumptive connecting factors existed to establish jurisdiction over each defendant individually. The court found that Parks Bottom and Fairmont Banff Springs (a trade name, not a legal entity) had no ties to Ontario—no business operations, office, or incorporation status in the province. Therefore, no jurisdiction could be assumed over them.

Accor and OMERS, while having registered offices in Toronto, were shown through uncontradicted affidavit evidence to have no operational connection to the incident or any material actions conducted from Ontario. The hotel operations and relevant staff were entirely based in Alberta. As such, both corporations successfully rebutted the presumptive jurisdiction. The court held that there was no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the tort claim.

Forum non conveniens: Alberta as the more appropriate forum

Even if jurisdiction had been found, the court stated it would have declined to exercise it. Applying the forum non conveniens doctrine, the court concluded that Alberta was a clearly more appropriate forum. The tort occurred in Alberta, the majority of witnesses and evidence were located there, and Alberta’s law would govern the incident. The plaintiff’s suggestion that she may call Ontario-based medical experts was speculative and unsupported by any firm evidence.

The court also noted that although virtual hearings could alleviate some burdens, Ontario civil trials are presumptively in-person, especially for trials involving juries. Moreover, the defendants, especially Accor, had strong operational connections to Alberta, while the plaintiff had no meaningful link to Ontario.

Outcome and final order

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over all the defendants and stayed the action against each of them. It further stated that, if jurisdiction had existed, it would still have stayed the proceedings under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court reserved the issue of costs, allowing the parties to submit written arguments within specified timelines.