Renvoi: Lex Situs Conflictus

Canadian Conflict of Laws Blawg by Seva Batkin

Puppy Law

Posted by Seva on August 5, 2008

Sorry for the prolonged absence, I’ve been busy with a couple projects and had no time (or more correctly energy) for blawg posts. I will try to catch up this week on several cases that I’ve wanted to mention.

Meanwhile, I want to answer an age-old question that no one asked: what do puppies and conflicts of laws have in common? The answer is: nothing! Well, except when a puppy is rge subject of an inter-provincial contract, as in Solylo v. Lamontagne (c.o.b. Star Magic) (Ont. S.C. – Small Claims) [no CanLii link yet].

The Ontario plaintiff mail-ordered a $3,000 pedigreed puppy from the Saskatchewan defendant, and apparently got the puppy less the pedigree paperwork and microchip. In response to the plaintiff’s small claims action in Kitchener court for $2,000 for breach of contract, the defendant hired an Ottawa lawyer and proceeded to vociferously argue lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, forum non conveniens, and other related issues.

Unsurprisingly, the defendant’s arguments were dismissed. The facts that the contract was formed in Ontario, the puppy was received in Ontario, the breach was discovered and the damages were thus also suffered in Ontario, were all sufficient to establish jurisdiction simplicter, albeit the court did not once refer to Muscutt. Moreover, the defendant did not show any viable reasons why Ontario was forum non conveniens and Saskatchewan was.

Alas, from the defendant’s perspective, the case went to the dogs.

OK, I promise, no more puns.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: