has a further 14 days within which to provide submissions in
response. The submissions will be brief: no more than five pages
in length, plus a costs outline.
Colavecchia et al. v. The Berkeley Hotel Limited
[Indexed as: Colavecchia v. Berkeley Hotel Ltd.]
2012 ONSC 4747
Superior Court of Justice, Goldstein J. August 17, 2012
Conflict of laws — Jurisdiction — Real and substantial connection —
Ontario-resident plaintiff booking room in boutique hotel located in
London, England through TD Visa Travel Rewards website and paying
for room by redeeming travel points — Plaintiffs suing hotel in Ontario
for negligence after plaintiff was injured in fall in hotel room — Action
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — No real and substantial connection
with Ontario — Defendant having no office or other premises in Ontario
— Mere fact that plaintiff booked room through TD Travel Rewards
website not meaning that defendant carried on business in Ontario —
Plaintiff not entering into contract with defendant in Ontario.
The defendant was a boutique hotel located in London, England. The female
plaintiff booked a room at the hotel through the TD Visa Travel Rewards website
and paid by redeeming travel points. The male plaintiff was injured when he
slipped and fell in the bathroom of their hotel room. The plaintiffs sued the
defendant in Ontario for damages for negligence. The defendant brought a
motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.
Held, the motion should be granted.
The defendant had no office or other premises in Ontario, and there was no
evidence that it engaged in a marketing campaign to specifically target Ontario
residents. The fact that the female plaintiff booked a room through the TD Visa
Travel Rewards website did not mean that the defendant carried on business
in Ontario. The website was nothing more than a search engine for those who
wanted to use their travel points. The female plaintiff did not enter into a contract with the defendant in Ontario. Rather, the contract was with TD Visa
Travel Rewards. It did not appear that there was any connection or negotiation
between the plaintiffs and the defendant until the plaintiffs checked in.
Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda,  S.C.J. No. 17, 2012 SCC 17, 291 O.A.C.
201, 2012EXP-1452, J.E. 2012-788, EYB 2012-205198, 429 N.R. 217, 343 D.L.R.
(4th) 577, 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 712, 91 C.C.L. T. (3d) 1, 10 R.F.L. (7th) 1, 17 C.P.C.
(7th) 223, apld
Noble v. Carnival Corp. (2006), 80 O.R. (3d) 392,  O.J. No. 1430, 
O.T.C. 336, 24 C.P.C. (6th) 124, 147 A.C.W.S. (3d) 216, 2006 CanLII 11441
(S.C.J.); Sidlofsky v. Crown Eagle Ltd.,  O.J. No. 4152,  O. T.C. 833,
2002 CanLII 10208, 117 A.C. W.S. (3d) 721 (S.C.J.), consd