In the context of the “unfairness to the plaintiff” factor from the Muscutt test for real and substantial connection, does reasonable expectation of the plaintiff include knowledge of the conflict of laws rules? As the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Pavacic v. Nicely Estate implicitly indicates, the answer to this question is no. Apparently, reasonable knowledge is limited to “common sense” rather than “legal” expectations. Does this conclusion make sense, and should this conclusion be part of the jurisdiction simpliciter question at all?
Advertisements
