Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo

Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo

Although the Centurion cardmember agreement could be treated as an Ontario contract connected to the dispute, the presumption of Ontario jurisdiction was rebutted because the connection between the Ontario contract and the water‑taxi tort in Italy was weak or non‑existent; therefore the Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction over the Italian defendants.

Citation
2025 SCC 27
Parties
Appellants: Duncan Sinclair and Michelle Sinclair; Respondents: Venezia Turismo, Venice Limousine S.R.L. and Narduzzi e Solemar S.L.R.; Intervener: Corporate Accountability Lab; Intervener: British Columbia Chamber of Commerce; Intervener: Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Private International Law — Jurisdiction Simpliciter / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction over the Italian defendants in relation to the water taxi accident
Legal Topics
Choice of Forum, Jurisdiction Simpliciter, Presumptive Connecting Factors (van Breda), Rebuttal of Jurisdictional Presumption, Forum Non Conveniens
Source Language
English
Private International Law Conflict of Laws Tort Law Contract Law Choice of Forum Jurisdiction Simpliciter Presumptive Connecting Factors (van Breda) Rebuttal of Jurisdictional Presumption +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duncan Sinclair and Michelle Sinclair

Appellants

Venezia Turismo, Venice Limousine S.R.L. and Narduzzi e Solemar S.L.R.

Respondents

Corporate Accountability Lab

Intervener

British Columbia Chamber of Commerce

Intervener

Ontario Trial Lawyers Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Private International Law — Jurisdiction Simpliciter / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario (Van Breda fourth factor)
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of jurisdiction based on that contract has been rebutted by the foreign defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Centurion cardmember agreement could be treated as an Ontario contract connected to the dispute, the presumption of Ontario jurisdiction was rebutted because the connection between the Ontario contract and the water‑taxi tort in Italy was weak or non‑existent; therefore the Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction over the Italian defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Ontario courts do not have jurisdiction over the Italian defendants in relation to the water taxi accident

Orders

  • Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada dismissed
  • Order of the Court of Appeal staying the action against Venezia Turismo, Venice Limousine S.R.L. and Narduzzi e Solemar S.L.R. is upheld (Ontario courts lack jurisdiction over those defendants)